Venting Is suicide moral or immoral?

[Darkover]

Suicide is taking ones own life. Universally we all have the ultimate ability to make whatever possible choice within any given moment. Its not necessarily irrational because human logic and behavior only have a casual relationship, what doesn't make sense to one person might make complete sense to another. If life is mathematically to be more miserable than it is pleasurable for the majority of its course, then to some, it may make complete sense to not continue living as living has been overshadowed by something that isnt worth enduring. Especially pain without any reward for the effort of its enduring, and ofc thats also subjective.

With that said, ive asked myself how must i gauge what is and isnt worth living? If i were to have a super power that allowed me to fast forward time and instantly skip experiences id choose not to experience, how much would i skip? Im sure many would say more than 50 percent. Then couldn't it be argued that if you wished to skip that amount of time, it would be time not worth living? that person committed to the laws the universe has permitted them. They carried out their will to die, a choice to no longer step forward. With that said, free will also allows murder and mayhem, these things can be argued to be morally deplorable.

Onwards with the next point to be made which is the crux of the entire debate. "Suicide causes pain for the people who wish that person be alive rather than dead". could it be argued that suicide is an act that is to the detriment of another's well being, for personal gain (relief)? And why is it always assumed that universally all suicides are to end a sad and overwhelming life? What about suicide bombings? Suicide attacks? Lets remove these from the question itself, and let's only take into account suicides that are purely to end a life that is perceived as not worth living, without any collateral damage in the form of physical violence. The obviously stated.

On both ends the living and deceased we see diminished well being. One has endured such a tragic existence and only sees it as to continue that way, and therefore suicide is an option worthy of picking. On the other side, as a result of the individual suffering and taking the decision of ending it into their own hands, others now have to experience pain. How do we assess this problem?

 

[Skywren]

Moral. Its your life, simple as that

 

[brokeandbroken]

Suicide is taking ones own life. Universally we all have the ultimate ability to make whatever possible choice within any given moment. Its not necessarily irrational because human logic and behavior only have a casual relationship, what doesn't make sense to one person might make complete sense to another. If life is mathematically to be more miserable than it is pleasurable for the majority of its course, then to some, it may make complete sense to not continue living as living has been overshadowed by something that isnt worth enduring. Especially pain without any reward for the effort of its enduring, and ofc thats also subjective.

With that said, ive asked myself how must i gauge what is and isnt worth living? If i were to have a super power that allowed me to fast forward time and instantly skip experiences id choose not to experience, how much would i skip? Im sure many would say more than 50 percent. Then couldn't it be argued that if you wished to skip that amount of time, it would be time not worth living? that person committed to the laws the universe has permitted them. They carried out their will to die, a choice to no longer step forward. With that said, free will also allows murder and mayhem, these things can be argued to be morally deplorable.

Onwards with the next point to be made which is the crux of the entire debate. "Suicide causes pain for the people who wish that person be alive rather than dead". could it be argued that suicide is an act that is to the detriment of another's well being, for personal gain (relief)? And why is it always assumed that universally all suicides are to end a sad and overwhelming life? What about suicide bombings? Suicide attacks? Lets remove these from the question itself, and let's only take into account suicides that are purely to end a life that is perceived as not worth living, without any collateral damage in the form of physical violence. The obviously stated.

On both ends the living and deceased we see diminished well being. One has endured such a tragic existence and only sees it as to continue that way, and therefore suicide is an option worthy of picking. On the other side, as a result of the individual suffering and taking the decision of ending it into their own hands, others now have to experience pain. How do we assess this problem?

I think it is a complicated question. With so many complexities. I think a world where people are shoved out and mistreated until they kill themselves that's probably immoral.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Both. It's moral in terms of- I'd argue that we are effectively a parasite on this earth. There are way too many of us for the planet to be able to support us long-term- because we have developed so many technologies that pollute and destroy it. We share this earth with millions of other species. I'd say it would be in their favour if a lot of us took ourselves out.

Immoral- in terms of- we knowingly inflict grief on the people we leave behind. I'd counter argue that though by saying that birthing a child here is just as immoral- if not more. We are brought here also knowing that we will experience grief and death. For some weird reason though, we're expected to just accept that and be grateful for the opportunity.

 

[Jeav]

Morality is a concept of the so-called healthy society, if the society was moral we would not have asked this question

 

[AbusedInnocent]

For the vast majority of people the suffering they would endure continuing their life is much greater that any harm that would happen to their friends and family if they were to commit suicide, so suicide is moral unless someone really likes you or you have the ability to significantly change the world for the better but were too selfish to do so.

"Suicide causes pain for the people who wish that person be alive rather than dead"

What really matters though is whether suicide is a right, everyone would agree that "Divorce causes pain for the people who wish that person be married rather than divorced" yet nobody argues against the right to divorce, I believe the right to die to be just as inviolable as the right to divorce and should be legal even if it's immoral, your relationship with life can be abusive as well after all.

 

[kinderbueno]

Moral, it's simply a treatment that frees us from suffering; a permanent solution to a permanent problem

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I think that it's morally neutral. In the end, suicide is just a mere action. There's no use in trying to see suicide in terms of morals

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Getting 95% of your skin burned off and having to live like that, the pain horror and suffering is bad. There are many horrible things that a human can fall victim to any day.The only thing that cause those horrible things is life and this world . So Life and this world are evil because they cause such extreme pain and suffering . nothing is worth such constant unbearable pain . Nothing justifies such excruciating pain . The most important thing to me is avoiding extreme pain and extreme suffering and then regular pain too as there is no reason to accept any kind of pain or suffering..it's moral and logical to want to escape such a dangerous burdensome evil imposition as life and this world.

No one can tell me a reason why I have to accept extreme pain or remain at risk to fall into a trap of extreme torture. So suicide is moral. I'm not affecting anyone else if I drink a poison and die. After Death I will then be forever free of pain suffering problems bad memories and 10000 bad things in life . After Death is non-existence forever which is better than life never any pain suffering problems bad memories and 10000 bad things in life.

Non-existence forever is good and the ultimate bliss if only because it's the opposite of bad evil life .

Life is an evil imposition, and prison torture slavery . You are doing a prison term at hard labor waiting for the torture of diseases of old age and other threats. It's moral to want to escape such a situation as a prisoner of evil life and this evil world.

 

[waistcoat]

i'd say suicide is moral. anyone that says otherwise can stfu

 

[samsara_96]

I believe that the morality of actions themselves shouldn't be generalized. We can generalize their legality, but morals are not as straight-forward. For example, murder is always illegal but is it always immoral? Is the murder of an abuser immoral if it is carried out by their victims? What about a murder carried out by someone with intellectual disability? What about murder that resulted from a genuinely unintentional accident? All three cases depict illegal actions but their morality is up for debate. This part most people already agree with so, I believe that a more interesting question is when is suicide moral or immoral?

To answer that question, I'd say suicide, in most cases, is neither moral or immoral. Because the morality requires a free-will, as you've mentioned, an action imposing that will on the external world, and another being with free-will getting somehow affected by that. Let's start with establishing that a person existing alone cannot be moral or immoral because they themselves are shaping the external world without a worry for anyone else. Their action might have bad consequences but they have to suffer the consequences alone. Hence, the actions of a lonely person can be foolish or smart but we can't call them moral or immoral. Similarly, actions that don't modify the external world can't also be moral or immoral because that fails the second requirement. If the change in the external world don't prohibit somebody else from imposing their own will on it, then there isn't a conflict of interest necessary for a morality debate.

I'd consider suicides to be somehow similar to both of these actions. As our bodies belong only to us and we are cursed with a lonely existence within it, suicide, from the point of view of the lonely mind, can either be foolish or smart; not moral or immoral. Moreover, the change you're bringing about is merely making your own body lifeless. There shouldn't be a conflict of interest unless the person complaning directly wants to impose their own will on your body. So, for example, if my mom wanted to make good memories with me in 2025, she might start complaining about my impending suicide being immoral if she ever finds that out. But, then, I ask can such dreams ever be real? If the person that you claim to care about is in a dire mental or physical pain, can you even make good memories with them? The action of imposing your own will of "making happy memories" on someone who is clearly in pain is what is immoral here as that person is getting affected negatively by that forcefully actualized will.

Finally, on the topic of whether your suicide might introduce a devastating pain to another person who've never gone through it and their will getting affected by that: The answer is that the point at which their mind meets such pain doesn't really matter because eventually, everybody must face devastating pains. Even those seemingly perfect lives must face it. Even if you manage to live your life without any problems until you're really old, you must at least face the pain of all the good things coming to an end. Because that's how death looks to seemingly perfect lives: a remainder that all good things will come to pass. Hence, I don't think that the time at which s devastating pain is introduced to somebody's life really matters that much.

Honestly, the only scenario in which suicide isn't morally neutral is when an abuser does it to escape their punishment. In this case, I consider suicide to be immoral not because the person killed themselves but, instead, because the person was already in a chain of immoral actions.

 

[Praestat_Mori]

Suicide is self-care!

 

[AbsentMindedHuman]

Moral. It's no different than shooting a deer that is still alive but injured that you hit with your car, or a terminally ill cancer patient asking for grace. Why should you have to continue suffering if the only difference is choice? You are taking care of yourself. It's immoral to force those who suffer to live on for others selfish reasons.

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

I think it's morality is contingent on the motive and to some extent how it's done much like murder vs killing.

In war, an injured soldier may kill himself so he doesn't slow down the unit or get captured and forced to divulge secrets that would jeopardize others. I view this as moral.

If a disabled person that's miserable and want's to die, I view this as amoral ie morally neutral. I also view it as immoral on the part of others to force them to live.

I view revenge suicides as immoral. They are meant to evade self responsibility and inflict harm.

How one does it - suicide that jeopardizes the life of others or inflicts trauma on witnesses that could be avoided is immoral.

Depression suicides - I view these as amoral for the most part but do think some people rush to ctb when there's potential to live a decent life. Society generally views these as immoral because family is often left to blame themselves and grieve. Depends on the person and circumstances but I would not consider it immoral personally.

Threats of suicide as emotional blackmail - "If you don't do x, I'll kill myself". I consider this immoral and people that rely on this control tactic should be called on their bluff even if that means they go through with it.

Crisis suicides - drastic financial loss, unemployment, humiliation - amoral mostly. The moral compass shifts if one has dependents like children and family though.

Honor suicides like sepaku - cultural phenomenon. Moral in the sense that it can retain a family's dignity and social standing.

Willing sacrifices - People that volunteer to jump in the volcano so it rains and the tribe will have good crops - moral.

Have you seen the Yale lecture on suicide? It's really interesting and digs into the nuances of it:

 

[SoulWhisperer]

This was a very good and easy to understand (for me) speech, so cheers you for that. Anyways, worded like that I don't think the issue is whether suicide is "moral" or not because it brings pain to people close to you. I think by itself, the action of doing it causes no direct harm to anyone except yourself so what others feels is for them to feel and is indirect "damage". I also think that the very reason for us to question whether this is moral or not is because we already assume people close to us will be destroyed, asunder and distraught by the action. However are they forced to feel that way? Can we know how others will react before the suicide actually takes place? It's just mainstream and taken for granted that people will be sad after such an event regardless if the person that died was completely rational before and during the act and regardless if the person would actually feel relief or not by such a decision, in 99% of cases others alive will feel sad, although that's just how society feels about it. One could just not care for example or be happy for a person to have found peace for once and forever to name another, in that case it'd be considered "moral" because people wouldn't feel distraught by it.

Ultimately imo, whether or not is moral is entirely up to whether or not people will be sad regardless if you sought peace. And considered the average human it's bound to happen in most cases, so technically I would be inclined to say "immoral" but after my points about society's take I will say it's moral to me and I will respect a person's decision.

If anything the only thing I would resent are rushed decisions or decisions took without sobriety. Otherwise I'm all for rational decisions.

 

[preoppostmortem]

Suicide is taking ones own life. Universally we all have the ultimate ability to make whatever possible choice within any given moment. Its not necessarily irrational because human logic and behavior only have a casual relationship, what doesn't make sense to one person might make complete sense to another. If life is mathematically to be more miserable than it is pleasurable for the majority of its course, then to some, it may make complete sense to not continue living as living has been overshadowed by something that isnt worth enduring. Especially pain without any reward for the effort of its enduring, and ofc thats also subjective.

With that said, ive asked myself how must i gauge what is and isnt worth living? If i were to have a super power that allowed me to fast forward time and instantly skip experiences id choose not to experience, how much would i skip? Im sure many would say more than 50 percent. Then couldn't it be argued that if you wished to skip that amount of time, it would be time not worth living? that person committed to the laws the universe has permitted them. They carried out their will to die, a choice to no longer step forward. With that said, free will also allows murder and mayhem, these things can be argued to be morally deplorable.

Onwards with the next point to be made which is the crux of the entire debate. "Suicide causes pain for the people who wish that person be alive rather than dead". could it be argued that suicide is an act that is to the detriment of another's well being, for personal gain (relief)? And why is it always assumed that universally all suicides are to end a sad and overwhelming life? What about suicide bombings? Suicide attacks? Lets remove these from the question itself, and let's only take into account suicides that are purely to end a life that is perceived as not worth living, without any collateral damage in the form of physical violence. The obviously stated.

On both ends the living and deceased we see diminished well being. One has endured such a tragic existence and only sees it as to continue that way, and therefore suicide is an option worthy of picking. On the other side, as a result of the individual suffering and taking the decision of ending it into their own hands, others now have to experience pain. How do we assess this problem?

don't have any huge philosophical revelation to add here but i think about this a lot. people accidentally hurt the ones they care about all the time, it's human, it doesn't necessarily make them "bad" or immoral. but if it's purposeful then maybe it is selfish or immoral to take your own life knowing it'll hurt the ones you love. but isn't it just as selfish to force somebody to live a life they can't stand, to make them suffer just so you can feel better?

maybe you could make a point about harm reduction, make a suicidal person live and they're the ones that suffer the most (unless the people in their lives get sick of dealing with them, but that's a lot less painful than actively wishing you were dead). let them die and all their loved ones suffer. don't think those are equal amounts of pain, though.

 

[maniac116]

Suicide is taking ones own life. Universally we all have the ultimate ability to make whatever possible choice within any given moment. Its not necessarily irrational because human logic and behavior only have a casual relationship, what doesn't make sense to one person might make complete sense to another. If life is mathematically to be more miserable than it is pleasurable for the majority of its course, then to some, it may make complete sense to not continue living as living has been overshadowed by something that isnt worth enduring. Especially pain without any reward for the effort of its enduring, and ofc thats also subjective.

With that said, ive asked myself how must i gauge what is and isnt worth living? If i were to have a super power that allowed me to fast forward time and instantly skip experiences id choose not to experience, how much would i skip? Im sure many would say more than 50 percent. Then couldn't it be argued that if you wished to skip that amount of time, it would be time not worth living? that person committed to the laws the universe has permitted them. They carried out their will to die, a choice to no longer step forward. With that said, free will also allows murder and mayhem, these things can be argued to be morally deplorable.

Onwards with the next point to be made which is the crux of the entire debate. "Suicide causes pain for the people who wish that person be alive rather than dead". could it be argued that suicide is an act that is to the detriment of another's well being, for personal gain (relief)? And why is it always assumed that universally all suicides are to end a sad and overwhelming life? What about suicide bombings? Suicide attacks? Lets remove these from the question itself, and let's only take into account suicides that are purely to end a life that is perceived as not worth living, without any collateral damage in the form of physical violence. The obviously stated.

On both ends the living and deceased we see diminished well being. One has endured such a tragic existence and only sees it as to continue that way, and therefore suicide is an option worthy of picking. On the other side, as a result of the individual suffering and taking the decision of ending it into their own hands, others now have to experience pain. How do we assess this problem?

I think that suicide is ammoral ; that is neither moral nor immoral.
It's free or without morality.
Just my 2 cents

 

[MatrixPrisoner]

If ending one's own insufferable life is immoral, then procreating life that has a high probability of being insufferable is even more immoral. Morailty involves a choice and we did not choose to be here.

 

[ThisIsMe1357]

It can also be neither. I think if you are trying to die because of immeasurable pain and suffering, there is nothing morally wrong with it, even though I would not necessarily call the action moral. It is just there to help in a very specific case. It is like drinking a glass of water when someone is very thirsty.

Unless, of course, someone is trying to die to also take a bunch of different innocent people with them, as in the act of terrorism, in which case it is definitely immoral.

 

[sserafim]

Moral

 

[Kalista]

neither. morality comes in to play based on how people feel towards it -- the emotions that rise up within by thinking of or seeing such an action.

yet it tends to be immoral when external sources are hurt by it, but moral if the pain and suffering is understood and the choice accepted.

Unless, of course, someone is trying to die to also take a bunch of different innocent people with them, as in the act of terrorism, in which case it is definitely immoral.

on the other hand, the suicide bombers thought it moral and justified to blow themselves up along with other people. it's going to be obviously easy for people to pick a side here, but it should also be asked why they do what they do.

morality is different in each culture. take switzerland for example. they support assisted suicide. while it's still limited and could be better, it allows people who meet the requirements to leave peacefully, but in most countries this is frowned upon.

this is a debate that will never see an end whatever the subject matter is in regards to morality.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Neither. It is in of itself neutral, with its morality depending on a mixture of culture and context, as is with most things. There isn't anything inherently immoral or moral about it.

 

[opheliaoveragain]

I think that it's morally neutral. In the end, suicide is just a mere action. There's no use in trying to see suicide in terms of morals

Agree with this for sure. Everyone dies eventually, sooner is just that, sooner.

 

[ThisIsMe1357]

neither. morality comes in to play based on how people feel towards it -- the emotions that rise up within by thinking of or seeing such an action.

yet it tends to be immoral when external sources are hurt by it, but moral if the pain and suffering is understood and the choice accepted.


on the other hand, the suicide bombers thought it moral and justified to blow themselves up along with other people. it's going to be obviously easy for people to pick the side here, but it should also be asked why they do what they do.

morality is different in each culture. this is a debate that will never see an end whatever the subject matter is in regards to morality.

They may have thought it to be moral in their culture, but I think we can all agree that it is objectively not moral regardless of what those kind of poeple would say. There are at least some topics in the world where the right and wrong is clearly defined and this would be one of them. So, terrorists claiming that it is moral according to their line of thinking would have no value in my opinion.

 

[Kalista]

They may have thought it to be moral in their culture, but I think we can all agree that it is objectively not moral regardless of what those kind of poeple would say. There are at least some topics in the world where the right and wrong is clearly defined and this would be one of them. So, terrorists claiming that it is moral according to their line of thinking would have no value in my opinion.

it is impossible to objectively agree what is moral or immoral because of cultural differences. what you're describing is subjectively learned, chosen and/or agreed upon by most people, which doesn't make it objective. that's the point i was trying to make. your last sentence alone expresses subjectivity due to it being your opinion.
if you grew up and learned a way of life with those people, you would be saying something completely different.

anyways, that's all i'm going to say as i don't want this topic to stray off.

 

[doneforlife]

I think it's morality is contingent on the motive and to some extent how it's done much like murder vs killing.

In war, an injured soldier may kill himself so he doesn't slow down the unit or get captured and forced to divulge secrets that would jeopardize others. I view this as moral.

If a disabled person that's miserable and want's to die, I view this as amoral ie morally neutral. I also view it as immoral on the part of others to force them to live.

I view revenge suicides as immoral. They are meant to evade self responsibility and inflict harm.

How one does it - suicide that jeopardizes the life of others or inflicts trauma on witnesses that could be avoided is immoral.

Depression suicides - I view these as amoral for the most part but do think some people rush to ctb when there's potential to live a decent life. Society generally views these as immoral because family is often left to blame themselves and grieve. Depends on the person and circumstances but I would not consider it immoral personally.

Threats of suicide as emotional blackmail - "If you don't do x, I'll kill myself". I consider this immoral and people that rely on this control tactic should be called on their bluff even if that means they go through with it.

Crisis suicides - drastic financial loss, unemployment, humiliation - amoral mostly. The moral compass shifts if one has dependents like children and family though.

Honor suicides like sepaku - cultural phenomenon. Moral in the sense that it can retain a family's dignity and social standing.

Willing sacrifices - People that volunteer to jump in the volcano so it rains and the tribe will have good crops - moral.

Have you seen the Yale lecture on suicide? It's really interesting and digs into the nuances of it:

Good analysis!

What about suicides based on mental/ psychological suffering?

 

[Steff1337]

I'll just say, it's moral. The right to live, the right to die.

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

Good analysis!

What about suicides based on mental/ psychological suffering?

Yeah I guess these don't quite fall under depression.

There are suicides due to narcissistic abuse, childhood trauma, bullying, victim of a crime like rape or something like being backed into a corner in life that one finds unacceptable like damage from psychiatric treatment or drugs. I do not think these are immoral in any way. These suicides are the saddest to me but denying the relief of suicide because it abstractly lets the bad guys "win" is immoral.

I tend to fall back on morally neutral aka amoral. I find the morality question falls more on the society.

It is immoral to restrain all agency of a person to be able to ctb in a safe and painless manner.
It is immoral to implicitly censor discussion about suicide on threat of involuntary commitment.
It is immoral to for religious people to shame families and friends of suiciders and set cultural and medical norms which enable the immoralities of the two points above.

 

[Worndown]

Personal, neither moral or imoral.

 

[untothedepths]

i think its neutral, but its not as much of a sinful action as most think it is. it is just unfortunate people cannot make the decision to leave peacefully.