is suicide selfish?

[kvothe27]

Improving your situation without regards to how other people will feel is selfish (and also not necessarily bad). If being alive is more painful than not existing, then suicide is a step up, and it's selfish. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that people who commit suicide do not consider it a better option than life. They obviously chose it!

I'm making a distinction between consequence and intention in the case of suicide. I'm also pointing out the uniqueness of death in making a character judgment. I'm also going to point out a difference in not assuming psychological egoism.

Nonexistence is never improvement because there is no experience in nothingness and thus it is impossible for there to be improvement. In consequence, suicide is always selfless because the self becomes no more. It is the end of that person's ego. Suicide may harm other people, but this is irrelevant as to whether it is selfish, in consequence, since it is impossible for improvement in suicide, as previously said. It's not a step up. It's a step to nothing.

In terms of intention, in order for a person to accept suicide as being possibly selfless in terms of intentions there is an important assumption that needs to be dispensed with -- psychological egoism. If one stops assuming it as true, then it very much is possible for the intention of suicide to be selfless, especially if the intention is to no longer be a burden on society. I've read a number of suicide notes that indicate just that -- they believe they are a burden and suicide is the only way for them to stop being a burden. It doesn't matter whether they actually are a burden or not. If that person's intention in committing suicide is to benefit others, it is not selfish in intention.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Nonexistence is never improvement because there is no experience in nothingness and thus it is impossible for there to be improvement.

I agree with the basic premise of everything else, at least. However, the lack of experience could be better than a life full of bad. The bad will stop. you will no longer be unhappy. I'm not advocating it as an actual solution in most cases someone's considering it, but I'm also not going to deny that it could be better than the life of someone who, for whatever reason, is constantly suffering.

 

[kvothe27]

I agree with the basic premise of everything else, at least. However, the lack of experience could be better than a life full of bad. The bad will stop. you will no longer be unhappy. I'm not advocating it as an actual solution in most cases someone's considering it, but I'm also not going to deny that it could be better than the life of someone who, for whatever reason, is constantly suffering.

Improvement only occurs for an individual when experienced. Dead individuals are incapable of experiencing anything. Thus, improvement for an individual is impossible by successful suicide.

You reject my first premise. I use this first premise due to the uniqueness of death. We, as humans, tend to predict improvement by performing certain actions and know that improvement actually occurs via experience, otherwise we only intended improvement. We may try to predict what might happen to us based on other people's experiences, but it is impossible for anyone to ever experience non-experience, since this is a contradiction.

 

[QuickTwist]

Yes suicide is selfish. If you don't like it you can go to hell.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Improvement only occurs for an individual when experienced. Dead individuals are incapable of experiencing anything. Thus, improvement for an individual is impossible by successful suicide.

You reject my first premise. I use this first premise due to the uniqueness of death. We, as humans, tend to predict improvement by performing certain actions and know that improvement actually occurs via experience, otherwise we only intended improvement. We may try to predict what might happen to us based on other people's experiences, but it is impossible for anyone to ever experience non-experience, since this is a contradiction.

If you consider not existing to be better than existing, then not existing is an improvement regardless that we don't experience non-existence. It's not because we know what not existing is like that one would consider it an improvement, but because they stop experiencing existence. That's the reason it could be an improvement, if you consider life to be irredeemably bad. A person could consider the option of no longer experiencing life to be better than experiencing life based on experiencing life, not based on experiencing non-existence (which is a contradiction to begin with).

It's not possible to experience non-existence because it's not a thing! That's the point! The badness of life cannot continue if you don't exist!

 

[Paladin-X]

The real question is... did the suicide bomber do it for his fellow man (moral implications aside) or the 72 virgins?

 

[kvothe27]

If you consider not existing to be better than existing, then not existing is an improvement regardless that we don't experience non-existence. It's not because we know what not existing is like that one would consider it an improvement, but because they stop experiencing existence. That's the reason it could be an improvement, if you consider life to be irredeemably bad. A person could consider the option of no longer experiencing life to be better than experiencing life based on experiencing life, not based on experiencing non-existence (which is a contradiction to begin with).

It's not possible to experience non-existence because it's not a thing! That's the point! The badness of life cannot continue if you don't exist!

A non-existent thing has nothing. It is the absence of everything, including improvement. A no-longer-existing person may have intended improvement, but it is never an actual attribute because that person is nothing. It makes no sense to provide nothing with attributes. It is the absence of everything, including attributes. That person has been replaced by a corpse. You don't improve something by replacing it. You might improve the context in which it is found, but that's about it.

That person can intend whatever he pleases, but once he is nothing, whatever he intended for himself, is no longer possible because it makes no sense to give nothing attributes. We, as spectators, may note that he got what he wanted, but we're making attributions to a memory of that person, not actually that person.

 

[Hawkeye]

A non-existent thing has nothing. It is the absence of everything, including improvement. A no-longer-existing person may have intended improvement, but it is never an actual attribute because that person is nothing. It makes no sense to provide nothing with attributes. It is the absence of everything, including attributes. That person has been replaced by a corpse. You don't improve something by replacing it. You might improve the context in which it is found, but that's about it.

That person can intend whatever he pleases, but once he is nothing, whatever he intended for himself, is no longer possible because it makes no sense to give nothing attributes. We, as spectators, may note that he got what he wanted, but we're making attributions to a memory of that person, not actually that person.

So, basically you agree with SpaceYeti, but are arguing semantics.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I was going to comment how we're not even arguing, any more, but ^ beat me to it.