Kill Yourself

[snafupants]

Most days I am disturbed when I see that on YouTube. I wonder about the ethical implications of such an invitation. If person A tells person B to kill himself (perhaps only via YouTube comment), and the latter actually does it that night, how (if at all) culpable is person A for person B's untimely demise? I started thinking along these abstract lines after reading Buddhism's suggestions that one shouldn't transact in the killing of animals or drug trade.* I can just see how an offhand comment could snowball into an apparent catastrophe.

*Now I'm wondering if coffee is an "addictive drug" under Buddhism's criterion. Oh no! It still seems a few rungs down from slave trade, at any rate.

I'm referring above to the right livelihood portion of the noble eightfold path.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_fold_Path

 

[Etheri]

I've been playing with the thought that humans are 'cancer cells' if you consider mankind to be the organism, rather than the individual human. While the death of an individual is tragic, as everything, it's got both advantages and disadvantages depending on perspective.

Rules, whether they're laws, advice or spiritual, aren't really tightly set rules. They're more like guidelines. I wonder if making someone smile, inducing dopamine to be released into their brain, falls under addictive drug trade.

 

[Absurdity]

I joke about committing suicide all the time, and regularly invite others to kill themselves as well. I don't think I'd be culpable if they actually did it though. Sure I'd feel guilty for a little while, but they either had some ongoing issue that caused them to take their own life, or they're just idiots.

This is probably a horrifying perspective to some. I blame my nihilism on my comfortable upper-middle class upbringing and a transformative mushroom trip in which I fully perceived the nothingness of the universe and laughed aloud.

Since everyone seems to be touting their enlightenment on this forum these days, I guess I might as well join in. Bitches.

 

[snafupants]

Rules, whether they're laws, advice or spiritual, aren't really tightly set rules. They're more like guidelines. I wonder if making someone smile, inducing dopamine to be released into their brain, falls under addictive drug trade.

Haha, I get the feeling an addictive drug (here defined) causes negative physiological imbalances and lifestyle impairment. I also associate "drug" and an outside substance.

 

[GodOfOrder]

We are our own rational and moral agents, each in control of our actions. Therefore whatever person A says, person B was the one who chose to commit suicide. So while person A's actions may not have been rational or moral, person A does not assume any responsibility for person B's actions.

 

[snafupants]

I joke about committing suicide all the time, and regularly invite others to kill themselves as well. I don't think I'd be culpable if they actually did it though. Sure I'd feel guilty for a little while, but they either had some ongoing issue that caused them to take their own life, or they're just idiots.

That's how I rationalize it, or would if I made a habit of it and they actually did it. I don't instruct someone to put a gun in their mouth (except, apparently, jestingly or philosophically in this thread).

 

[snafupants]

Hm, what if they are just idiots? Does that mean you can ethically tell a retarded person to off himself, knowing that perhaps s/he will do just that?

 

[Etheri]

Haha, I get the feeling an addictive drug (here defined) causes negative physiological imbalances and lifestyle impairment. I also associate "drug" and an outside substance.

I don't think this rules dopamine out at all. It does probably kill my scenario of simply providing it by making someone smile. Either way, I think you see my point?

Also, to be honest, if I told someone to go kill themselves and they did, I'd feel pretty awful regardless of my rationalisations on the subject.

 

[snafupants]

We are our own rational and moral agents, each in control of our actions. Therefore whatever person A says, person B was the one who chose to commit suicide. So while person A's actions may not have been rational or moral, person A does not assume any responsibility for person B's actions.

I know the Kantian moral agency thing but it seems somewhat juvenile and categorical to pretend people operate in a vacuum. I'm not sure some people are capable of choice, in other words. So, does the onus shift to those who can choose? Maybe not.

 

[snafupants]

I don't think this rules dopamine out at all. It does probably kill my scenario of simply providing it by making someone smile. Either way, I think you see my point?

Also, to be honest, if I told someone to go kill themselves and they did, I'd feel pretty awful regardless of my rationalisations on the subject.

Oh yeah haha. Natural states can definitely mimic the effects of drugs. Basically drugs operate by activating something inborn in you anyway, which is why they're addictive. Drugs that act on dopamine are especially addictive because dopamine is nature's reinforcement instrument.

 

[snafupants]

Also, to be honest, if I told someone to go kill themselves and they did, I'd feel pretty awful regardless of my rationalisations on the subject.

So would I. That's basically why I don't say it for the most part. It's not totally self-interested, though. I genuinely don't want my speech to lead to their death or undue suffering. I guess I would feel less "awful" if they were self-determining agencies; then I would feel it was more their decision. Edit: I also feel like saying it is low-class and giving into frustration.

 

[Absurdity]

Hm, what if they are just idiots? Does that mean you can ethically tell a retarded person to off himself, knowing that perhaps s/he will do just that?

I don't associate with retarded people. That's a job for more noble individuals.

Problem solved.

 

[Latte]

Responsibility and ideas of right and wrong are superfluous and yield error, ambiguity, contradiction or a lack of conclusion in whatever system of reality understanding they are a part of.

To look at how telling someone to kill themselves might affect a situation and evaluating whether its results or the act itself yield experiences, thoughts or feelings that are beneficial and/or detrimental for one's well being is a question that avoids such errors but fills the same life-navigational function.

 

[snafupants]

I just now recall a story from high school which may have shaped my feeling on the subject. There was a fat girl who was jokingly asked to prom by a jock. He wrote on the card (he invited her with a card) "we'll have a whale of a time." She killed herself that night. Would she have eventually done so otherwise? I don't know.

 

[GodOfOrder]

I just now recall a story from high school which may have shaped my feeling on the subject. There was a fat girl who was jokingly asked to prom by a jock. He wrote on the card (he invited her with a card) "we'll have a whale of a time." She killed herself that night. Would she have eventually done so otherwise? I don't know.

I would call that the the straw that likely broke the camel's back, a catalyst, but not cause unto itself. If one broke due to only one comment they are weak and would have never survived anyway.

Still the jock was a huge dick, and a malicious actor, but I do not think he intended her death. The cause of death was self inflicted, and the fat girl still assumes ultimate responsibility. He was just a dick, not a murderer.

 

[Fukyo]

Yes, they would be guilty. "How much" depends on whether there was intent or awareness of the person's fragility and probability of killing themselves, and other factors. Context matters.

I honestly find it far more heinous "if they were going to kill themselves anyway" and the catalyst is aware, even implicitly of this.

 

[Minuend]

If you isolate events like this, you'll end up in a very absurd society.

Say you face possible serious physical damage from a mugger. Say you manage to knock him down and kill him. If we were to apply the logic stated above, the defender would be as guilty as an everyday murderer. After all, he could've just let the other guy beat and possible kill him, stealing his belongings in the process. The offender is not responsible for coming to harm in this situation.

Sure, it's probably right from a certain kind of perspective, but it has dire consequences on the way we treat other people and execute laws.

Sometimes I see a trend on this forum where some jump to conclusions without considering the larger picture, especially the parts that concern some kind of sympathy towards other humans. It's like it has become somewhat of a trait to admire- that which can disregard the human factor without flinching. In the process, there is a failure in the realization of why and how a more compassionate pack mentality can be advantageous, or even when it makes sense.

They seek the answer without being "influenced" by the human factor, not realizing that they just excluded a vital factor for seeing the truth in a complete matter.

 

[snafupants]

Yes, they would be guilty. "How much" depends on whether there was intent or awareness of the person's fragility and probability of killing themselves, and other factors. Context matters.

I honestly find it far more heinous "if they were going to kill themselves anyway" and the catalyst is aware, even implicitly of this.

I agree with all of this. As vague as taking intent into account makes matters, it is an important factor to consider when adjudicating blame.

Most people would agree that knowing maliciousness is worse than offhanded crudity.

But what if they truly would kill themselves anyway and the catalyst only hastened the process by one day? Is that necessarily a big deal?

In a sense, couldn't such teasing be considered compassionate if the person was in irremediable pain?

 

[snafupants]

I would call that the the straw that likely broke the camel's back, a catalyst, but not cause unto itself.

It's really impossible to say.

 

[snafupants]

Still the jock was a huge dick, and a malicious actor, but I do not think he intended her death. The cause of death was self inflicted, and the fat girl still assumes ultimate responsibility. He was just a dick, not a murderer.

I'm not calling the jock a murderer. Even if he instructed her to kill herself every day, I don't think that would make him a murderer. As you say, that makes him a dick.

 

[Latte]

You don't need ethical psuedo logic to see what you dislike and know why you dislike it, nor to justify the dislike. Stop over-complicating things and just kill yourselves.

 

[GodOfOrder]

You don't need ethical psuedo logic to see what you dislike and know why you dislike it, nor to justify the dislike. Stop over-complicating things and just kill yourselves.

you i like

 

[Duxwing]

We are our own rational and moral agents, each in control of our actions. Therefore whatever person A says, person B was the one who chose to commit suicide. So while person A's actions may not have been rational or moral, person A does not assume any responsibility for person B's actions.

In the ideal world of philosophy, yes. In the real world, no: our judgment is significantly affected by the perceived or imagined judgments, actions, and feelings of others, so telling someone to "kill themselves" can figuratively be the straw that breaks the camel's back, or at least a severely negative input into someone's emotional state-- even if he or she is mentally healthy.

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

In the ideal world of philosophy, yes. In the real world, no: our judgment is significantly affected by the perceived or imagined judgments, actions, and feelings of others, so telling someone to "kill themselves" can figuratively be the straw that breaks the camel's back, or at least a severely negative input into someone's emotional state-- even if he or she is mentally healthy.

-Duxwing

I never said that people's rationality or independent rights of self determination are an invincible bulwark against the influence of another human being. Of course one can influence another, but only indirectly. The ultimate action comes down to the individual themselves. Thus it is still an independent action, because the outside influence has only an indirect effect.

In this case the only action that counts is the direct action, the suicide.

 

[Duxwing]

I never said that people's rationality or independent rights of self determination are an invincible bulwark against the influence of another human being. Of course one can influence another, but only indirectly. The ultimate action comes down to the individual themselves. Thus it is still an independent action, because the outside influence has only an indirect effect.

In this case the only action that counts is the direct action, the suicide.

And if the person is no longer rational because of others' influence?

-Duxwing

 

[GodOfOrder]

@Duxwing

Rational or not, they still made a decision. It doesn't matter what state they were in.

Even if one was the most coercive and clever sun of a bitch on the planet, and reduced another to a squirming writhing mass of existential agony and compelled this person to suicide, the ultimate goal of the persons actions don't matter because he still does not exact direct control.

You can not compromise will even if you can compromise rationality. Rational or not the one who committed suicide made a decision to die. The reason for this decision is irrelevant.

 

[snafupants]

@Duxwing

Rational or not, they still made a decision. It doesn't matter what state they were in.

Even if one was the most coercive and clever sun of a bitch on the planet, and reduced another to a squirming writhing mass of existential agony and compelled this person to suicide, the ultimate goal of the persons actions don't matter because he still does not exact direct control.

You can not compromise will even if you can compromise rationality. Rational or not the one who committed suicide made a decision to die. The reason for this decision is irrelevant.

What if the person was on disorienting drugs when he was cajoled?

 

[Duxwing]

@Duxwing

Rational or not, they still made a decision. It doesn't matter what state they were in.

Making a "decision" implies rational deliberation, and we very well know that one can work another into a state, whether by words or drugs, in which rational deliberation, and therefore the ability to decide, is impaired.

Even if one was the most coercive and clever sun of a bitch on the planet, and reduced another to a squirming writhing mass of existential agony and compelled this person to suicide, the ultimate goal of the persons actions don't matter because he still does not exact direct control.

Oh yes it does. Human decisions-- not those of ideal agents-- are carried out in an actual piece of matter called "the brain," and the brain does not need to use its neocortex (the seat of reason) to effect motor response. Ways to prevent neocortical engagement include:

--All manner of psychoactive drugs
--Torture of all kinds
--Sudden, extreme stimulus
--Deliberate emotional manipulation

Psychoactive drugs, like alcohol, make people irrational, and therefore no longer responsible for their decisions; Torture prevents the use of executive function because the mind is too swept up in pain or fear to think; Sudden, extreme stimuli cause (both literally and figuratively) reflexive actions; And deliberate emotional manipulation can bring people back from the edge of suicide or murder (case in point, the people who do so for a living).

You can not compromise will even if you can compromise rationality. Rational or not the one who committed suicide made a decision to die. The reason for this decision is irrelevant.

A being whose will is controlled by an irrational mind cannot be held responsible for its actions: it's literally like having another person inside them, making their decisions for them. Let me draw you a picture of how healthy human stimulus-response cycles work so that we can understand each other's ideas better:

[STIMULUS]---->[SENSORY PREPROCESSING]---->[REFLEX CHECK]---->[RECOGNITION OF STIMULUS]---->[EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO RECOGNITION OF STIMULUS]---->[RATIONAL DECISION]---->[EMOTIONAL RESPONSE TO DECISION]---->[MOTOR PREPROCESSING]---->[REFLEX CHECK]---->[RESPONSE]

If just one-- ONE-- of these parts of the cycle is removed or diseased, then the brain is no longer rational because it is either no longer using reason, not perceiving reality, not able to will itself to do what it wants to do, or a combination of the three; moreover, reflexes skip straight to [REFLEX CHECK], and the response cycle must be able to loop back on itself at any point lest the intermediate responses mean nothing. Rationality is an all or nothing deal.

To my knowledge, here's how your model works:

[STIMULUS]---->[RATIONAL DECISION]---->[RESPONSE]

In eliminating all the other parts of the stimulus-response cycle you've stretched the meaning of "decision" to irrelevancy.

-Duxwing

 

[Hawkeye]

There was this incident, but I never heard of anything more after it.

They do however mention this:

Spoiler

psychologically inducing a person to commit suicide, or contributing to the act, can be classified as incitement to murder, and is a criminal offense.

So technically, you can be held accountable for telling someone to F.O.A.D.

 

[Latte]

you i like

I hope you realize that I am talking about you as well.

 

[Minuend]

 

[Alice?]

If you isolate events like this, you'll end up in a very absurd society.

Say you face possible serious physical damage from a mugger. Say you manage to knock him down and kill him. If we were to apply the logic stated above, the defender would be as guilty as an everyday murderer. After all, he could've just let the other guy beat and possible kill him, stealing his belongings in the process. The offender is not responsible for coming to harm in this situation.

Sure, it's probably right from a certain kind of perspective, but it has dire consequences on the way we treat other people and execute laws.

Sometimes I see a trend on this forum where some jump to conclusions without considering the larger picture, especially the parts that concern some kind of sympathy towards other humans. It's like it has become somewhat of a trait to admire- that which can disregard the human factor without flinching. In the process, there is a failure in the realization of why and how a more compassionate pack mentality can be advantageous, or even when it makes sense.

They seek the answer without being "influenced" by the human factor, not realizing that they just excluded a vital factor for seeing the truth in a complete matter.

I think that this is by and large the most valid point I have seen on the thread thus far. I also find it ironic how largely undiscussed it was.

 

[Hawkeye]

The offender is not responsible for coming to harm in this situation.

Yes they are...

All offenders are responsible for the consequences that arise from their actions.

Spoiler

self-defense is not an offence

 

[Latte]

Yes they are...

All offenders are responsible for the consequences that arise from their actions.

Spoiler

self-defense is not an offence

One should be sure one understands an argument as a whole before responding to an isolated line, as the context may alter one's perception of the intended meaning of it.
If one can not discern the overall meaning intended with the whole post, responding to a part of it is usually not a good idea, as one might be responding to a meaning no one conveyed.

Oh, and, of course... kill yourself.

 

[Hawkeye]

One should be sure one understands an argument as a whole before responding to an isolated line, as the context may alter one's perception of the intended meaning of it.
If one can not discern the overall meaning intended with the whole post, responding to a part of it is usually not a good idea, as one might be responding to a meaning no one conveyed.

Oh, and, of course... kill yourself.

Surely the word defender was meant.

 

[snafupants]

It's curious that "horrible" things repeatedly happened to the same women. Makes you wonder if she's horrible, judging by the limited incidence of these problems in the general population.

 

[Duxwing]

It's curious that "horrible" things repeatedly happened to the same women. Makes you wonder if she's horrible, judging by the limited incidence of these problems in the general population.

Much like bullying can erode the very self-confidence and strength needed to prevent it, abuse can warp one's view of relationship health-- especially when it (or bullying, for that matter) occurs for a long time from a young age. Hence, people who have been abused or bullied in the past tend to continue being abused or bullied until someone intervenes. Therefore, the woman in question is not "horrible" as you suggest, but mentally ill.

-Duxwing

 

[snafupants]

Much like bullying can erode the very self-confidence and strength needed to prevent it, abuse can warp one's view of relationship health-- especially when it (or bullying, for that matter) occurs for a long time from a young age. Hence, people who have been abused or bullied in the past tend to continue being abused or bullied until someone intervenes. Therefore, the woman in question is not "horrible" as you suggest, but mentally ill.

-Duxwing

Perhaps we have different definitions of horrible.

 

[Alice?]

Perhaps we have different definitions of horrible.

Care to support that with the definition of 'horrible' that you're referring to?

 

[Hawkeye]

It's curious that "horrible" things repeatedly happened to the same women. Makes you wonder if she's horrible, judging by the limited incidence of these problems in the general population.

This isn't a limited incidence. It only seems like a rarity because few people actually inform others it is happening, and those who do are for the most part ignored. Look at all the Jimmy Savile victims that have emerged for example.

Also, I'm sure this is the reason why these posters exist in the first place.


From the way you have written it, it looks like you imply these people could be the cause of their own demise. But as you have mentioned, your definition of horrible could be different (I would like to know what this definition is). I hope it differs as this thought process it incredibly evian (mirrored)

For what we have here is a form of human conditioning and many who are abused think that this is the way the world works.

 

[Hadoblado]

It's curious that "horrible" things repeatedly happened to the same women. Makes you wonder if she's horrible, judging by the limited incidence of these problems in the general population.

Considering that the first incident happened at four, any trait of hers that gets her raped a second or third time is quite possibly caused by this early trauma. It also doesn't need to be horribleness.

Sometimes I see a trend on this forum where some jump to conclusions without considering the larger picture, especially the parts that concern some kind of sympathy towards other humans. It's like it has become somewhat of a trait to admire- that which can disregard the human factor without flinching. In the process, there is a failure in the realization of why and how a more compassionate pack mentality can be advantageous, or even when it makes sense.

They seek the answer without being "influenced" by the human factor, not realizing that they just excluded a vital factor for seeing the truth in a complete matter.

I think the trend you see does exist, and not just on this forum. Plenty of people revel in their ability to remove themselves from their instinctual irrational self. I do it from time to time whether it be to bring something new to a discussion, or sometimes just when I'm feeling melancholic.

I don't think cold rationality is something to be glorified, but I also don't think it should be cast aside. The human factor is a an operator in the rational equation, it would be irrational not to consider it.

 

[Latte]

Considering that the first incident happened at four, any trait of hers that gets her raped a second or third time is quite possibly caused by this early trauma. It also doesn't need to be horribleness.

You guys have a really terrible way of either wording yourselves or thinking about subjects where saying something in a way that even can be conceivably interpreted to hint at the victim's behavior being the ultimate "why" in that she was abused will cause 60-80% of the forum to become wary of you and dislike you. Even on a forum where one readily expects the vast majority to be developmentally retarded when it comes to interpersonal awareness.


Now, what's said is said, so there's only one solution left. You have to kill yourselves.

 

[Hadoblado]

Don't give me that crap. I wasn't handing out blame, I was speculating as to causation. She seems to be, for some reason or other, a rape magnet. While Snafu seemed to assume that it was because she was in some way naturally and unchangeably 'horrible', I thought it possible that being raped, just as being bullied, can in some way alter the individual to become more vulnerable to it.

 

[Latte]

Don't give me that crap. I wasn't handing out blame, I was speculating as to causation. She seems to be, for some reason or other, a rape magnet. While Snafu seemed to assume that it was because she was in some way naturally and unchangeably 'horrible', I thought it possible that being raped, just as being bullied, can in some way alter the individual to become more vulnerable to it.

I know that's what you meant. Why are you still alive?

 

[Montresor]

only horrible people get raped I learned this at a young age.

 

[Minuend]

Surely the word defender was meant.

If you isolate events like this, you'll end up in a very absurd society.

Say you face possible serious physical damage from a mugger. Say you manage to knock him down and kill him. If we were to apply the logic stated above, the defender would be as guilty as an everyday murderer. After all, he could've just let the other guy beat and possible kill him, stealing his belongings in the process. The offender is not responsible for coming to harm in this situation.

And then I wrote a paragraph lamenting the simplicity of this thinking.

More peculiarly, why are you not addressing this guy:

@Duxwing

Rational or not, they still made a decision. It doesn't matter what state they were in.

Even if one was the most coercive and clever sun of a bitch on the planet, and reduced another to a squirming writhing mass of existential agony and compelled this person to suicide, the ultimate goal of the persons actions don't matter because he still does not exact direct control.

You can not compromise will even if you can compromise rationality. Rational or not the one who committed suicide made a decision to die. The reason for this decision is irrelevant.

Which would include a scenario where a malicious being held a child hostage and threatened to kill it unless its parent killed itself.

If we disregard disruptive intent, many non-malicious individuals will end up suffering for it. I find such perspectives lacking in basic psychology. Humans are not in control of themselves. Same with snaufupants' statement about victims.

Random gatherings below:

Stocking tragedy and abuse will often trigger destructive behaviour from an individual. Thus, a bully is helping to build a tower of negativity in the other individual. With enough negative feedback from the environment you can end up with a very enraged and depressed individual. Which can be fatal. As in school shootings, continued violent behaviours toward others, rape etc.

You will also find people with major disorders more likely to commit crime

Other factors in human behaviour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making#Cognitive_and_personal_biases

We dress a certain way, talk a certain way, make certain kind of choices. We adjust to the environment. It makes it possible for us to adopt to changes and survive, but it also leaves some vulnerability to get caught in behaviour-modifying environment that is not benefactory in the long run.

I could name factors like this forever, point being that being a human is not enough for dispaying enough self control and unbiased rationale. Personally I don't really believe in absolute rationality because of cognitive and personal biases, environmental influence, limited perception of reality (how the universe really works, sensory limitations etc).

In other words; We are easily influenced little fuckers.

 

[Duxwing]

And then I wrote a paragraph lamenting the simplicity of this thinking.

More peculiarly, why are you not addressing this guy:



Which would include a scenario where a malicious being held a child hostage and threatened to kill it unless its parent killed itself.

If we disregard disruptive intent, many non-malicious individuals will end up suffering for it. I find such perspectives lacking in basic psychology. Humans are not in control of themselves. Same with snaufupants' statement about victims.

Random gatherings below:

Stocking tragedy and abuse will often trigger destructive behaviour from an individual. Thus, a bully is helping to build a tower of negativity in the other individual. With enough negative feedback from the environment you can end up with a very enraged and depressed individual. Which can be fatal. As in school shootings, continued violent behaviours toward others, rape etc.

You will also find people with major disorders more likely to commit crime

Other factors in human behaviour

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprogramming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_making#Cognitive_and_personal_biases

We dress a certain way, talk a certain way, make certain kind of choices. We adjust to the environment. It makes it possible for us to adopt to changes and survive, but it also leaves some vulnerability to get caught in behaviour-modifying environment that is not benefactory in the long run.

I could name factors like this forever, point being that being a human is not enough for dispaying enough self control and unbiased rationale. Personally I don't really believe in absolute rationality because of cognitive and personal biases, environmental influence, limited perception of reality (how the universe really works, sensory limitations etc).

In other words; We are easily influenced little fuckers.

Exactly!

-Duxwing

 

[Hadoblado]

I know that's what you meant. Why are you still alive?

Because I have a good therapist. You?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Humans are already killing themselves as well as others. Bodies are slowly dying from air pollution, unhealthy diets, psychoemotional stress, cell decay and other causes; living itself entails death down the road regardless of intermediate events.

Does it really matter then whether a death is abrupt or prolonged? Might as well enjoy life if you're going to die anyway, or you can end it when you have had enough.

 

[Etheri]

or you can end it when you have had enough.

As if constantly wanting, craving for more isn't the true condition of the human mind.

To most of us, I don't think 'enough' exists. Atleast not in a good sense, perhaps in a sense of torture and pain.