Discussion Are there even rational arguments against CTB?

[Mistergeburt]

Hey, I was often wondering if there were actual rational arguments against suicide.
Personally I think suicide or death itself is rational, and so is living is based on a (neccessary) delusion. But I'm also guilty of arguing with someone who's depressed - but I've never given them rational arguments for actually keep living. I mean, it worked and they're still alive and even in a relationship with me, but mostly I feel like it weren't the actual arguments, I was just someone who was consistently being there for them. All I did was giving them a new perspective and love, never REAL arguments.

Some people on the internet will say empty phrases like "If you die, you don't know what you're missing out" (FOMO only exists when you're alive, so why would I care if I'm missing out?). Or "You will be better if you just hold on" (again, I can also end it and I'm better - FOMO only exists when you're alive). "Feelings won't be eternal" (But if I ctb right now, the feelings are also gone). "Keep living for the sake of other people" (is a powerful emotional reason, but not a rational argument imo as this won't fix the problem).

I mean, there are philosophical frameworks and moral that could attempt to measure how much a live is worth and if suicide could be morally acceptable, but they are not FACTS, they're just built on top of a lot of assumptions that many people would agree with. Take utilitarism for example. If suicide creates more suffering than it resolves, it is morally wrong, but who's going to measure that? Is your suffering greater than that of the one's who grieve over you (if anyone)? If you didn't ctb, maybe you would have caused more suffering for others.

So are there any reasonable arguments against ctb?

 

[ijustwannabeloved]

no

 

[dirkw83]

Well, a big one is that self-CTB is pretty damn risky in most cases.

 

[Mistergeburt]

Well, a big one is that self-CTB is pretty damn risky in most cases.

Do you mean "risky" in a personal manner, like you're going to have disabilities in case you survive?
But it's not really an argument against the concept of suicide, but rather against the act of ctb by yourself.
I mean, it's a great reason (not in the sense of being scared to do it), not to do it, but it's more like an argument why you shouldn't fail to ctb.
But otherwise, I mostly agree. The question is tho, how much does risk affect how rational a decision is? At what risk percentage would an act be irrational? Assuming the threshold would be >50%, then this would mean, methods that have a higher success rate than 50% would be rational, right?