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?

 

[moriix]

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?

i really dont think a "rational" or "objective" answer is even possible here. for each human the value of their life is deeply personal to them and as you said, depends on subjective factors and experiences. for example, someone with a terminal illness or a lot of chronic pain may deeply value life so suicide will not be rational for them. on the other hand there are a lot of people who are deeply unhappy despite okay physical circumstances so ctb may be a rational choice for them if they have tried everything and nothing helped. convincing someone that life is objectively worth it and suicide objectively is not is a futile pursuit, it is something that has to be understood and experienced by the person themselves. so I think giving that person your love and perspective was the best thing you could do in that situation, really.

the only rational argument I can think of against ctb is that you will die regardless so there really is no rush to ctb right this second. (but even that can be countered by saying that living longer will produce more suffering--but does that objectively matter? after death, you won't be ruminating on how much suffering or happiness you experienced. you will just not exist.) there is also a non-zero chance that the afterlife, if such exists, will be much worse than your current life. we still dont know 100% what actually happens to our consciousness when we die.

i really hope some of my ramble made sense xD what this conversation reminds me of is normal people's averse reactions to philosophies like antinatalism--they value their lives so deeply that the thought of not existing being objectively preferable is deeply abhorrent to them. these people may have experienced a lot of suffering themselves but their brain has enough healthy delusion to find their life valuable regardless. i wish I could be like that, honestly

 

[PsychedeliaSuicide]

I think you misunderstand a little about philosophical framework. Philosophy itself is trying to get to the bottom of reason with the least amount of fallacy and most rationale, rather the opposite of what you say about facts, and I think you just disagree with the stance of utilitarianism (which is fair, considering how flimsy it is). Your question itself is a philosophical question. So there are technically rational arguments; say, very generally, in natural law: your natural and biological necessity is to self-preserve and survive, so suicide is irrational trying to go against that. I think most people believe this approach when it comes to suicide (especially unconsciously, since it's from biological instinct), and so many philosophies work based on it.

I doubt anyone here is going to find anti-suicide arguments actually sound. To me, the most anti-suicide ideas I have are that I think suicide is a violation of self-will and moving of suffering. Still, I overall do agree suicide is more rational than irrational, and believe in the Stoic thought about it.