People often times talk about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of language, human rights and civil liberties. From what I know, if a person is not hurting anyone physically or not threatening other people's lives, why is it anybody's business to dictate what a person wants to do with his life?
You see a terrorist is a terrorist because a terrorist's motivation behind killing people in the most barbaric and brutal way is to terrorize other members of a society. But in the case of suicide, it's my life my choice - I get to to decide whether or not I want to experience it or end it.
I get the point that when a person commits suicide, you're not harming anyone physically, but you're still mentally traumatizing you're loved ones - your parents, friends who love you, your partner or spouse, your children etc etc. But outside of inflicting psychological remorse, you've not physically harmed anybody or tried the stop the working of a well - functioning society by committing acts of terrorism against innocent people.
Why is that if I'm not harming any member of my society except for myself - then I should be stopped from taking my own life?
That's an important question, and since it lies at the heart of what this site is about, I'll try to give a full discussion. (I'll call it a discussion rather than an answer, because I don't think there is a conclusive answer.) Let's start with the fact that there are many situations in which a reasonable person (which includes me and, I think, probably you too) would wish to discourage someone from dying. But that immediately raises the question: how are we to recognise such situations, and how can we distinguish them from situations in which we should respect someone's wish to die. Reasonable people may differ on that.
First, I think that impulsive suicide, or suicide by someone who is obviously not in control of their faculties (e.g. because of alcohol) should always be discouraged. Why do I think that? Because if it was me who was in that situation, I would almost certainly consider, once I had got past the short term impulse, or I had sobered up, that suicide would not have been a good idea. Of course, it's not guaranteed that a suicidal person would view things the same way as I do, even after they had got past the short term impulse or had sobered up, but common sense tells us that usually they would.
(It might sound as though the distinction is easy to make, but sometimes it isn't easy, especially if you have very little information about a person, as is sometimes the case on this site. Someone who is falling-over drunk is obviously not in control of their faculties. But what about someone who is psychotic? Or so depressed that they can't even get out of bed? What if their partner died last week? Or last month? Or 6 months ago? However, those are practical matters, and here I am trying to answer your more philosophical question.)
So let's assume, from now on, that people are not acting impulsively or while not in control of their faculties.
I ask three questions.
1. Is this person's problem only a minor one? If so, the best way forward may be to just put up with it. (We may have the practical difficulty that what appears minor to me may not appear minor to the person experiencing it. Empathy helps here, but sometimes different points of view can not be reconciled.)
2. Is the problem only going to be temporary (or, at least, is it likely that it will only be temporary)? If so, the best way forward may be to hunker down and wait for better times. (Again we may have a practical difficulty. It is not always clear whether a problem is temporary or permanent.)
3. Does this person's problem have a solution, or at least is there a reasonable chance that it may have a solution? If so, the best way forward may be to try the (supposed) solution, and see what happens. (There can be many practical difficulties here. A suggested solution may be inaccessible to the person concerned, e.g. because of cost. Or they may have attempted many potential solutions, all of which have failed, and they may be too weary to want to try yet another one.)
If the answer to any of those three questions is clearly "Yes", then I discourage the person from catching the bus.
If the answer to all of them is clearly "No", then I respect the persons choice to ctb.
If, as it quite often the case, I don't know the answers, and it seems that the person concerned doesn't really know them either, then I usually suggest some variant of "
Don't ctb yet. Wait until the issues become clearer before making a decision."
In all these cases, my response is guided by what I would want someone to say to me if I was the person experiencing the problem.
It's obvious that if two reasonable people set out to apply exactly the same philosophical guidelines that I have outlined above, they will sometimes come to different conclusions. Although those guidlines seem sensible and humane (and, I think,
are sensible and humane), there are many practical difficulties when it comes to applying them.
Also, a reasonable person might adopt rather different guidelines, while still staying close to the spirit of my own guidelines. Again that will sometimes lead to different conclusions when considering the same set of facts.
So, this stuff isn't simple even for people who are sympathetic to the ethos of this site.
Ethical viewpoints are not determined by objective reality. (It's not like the observed fact that heavy objects always fall downwards.) They are human constructs and are, to a considerable extent, arbitrary. If someone has an ethical viewpoint that causes them to discourage a suicidal person more strongly than I would discourage that person in the same circumstances, even much more strongly, I know of no objective way to demonstrate that they are wrong.
What I can say - and do say - is that if I myself had made a rational, non-impulsive decison to leave this world, in circumstances where the answer to all three questions above was "No", I would not welcome interference from anyone who wished to stop me. I would resist it. Just as I would resist anyone who tried to rob me. I would regard it as an unwarranted interference on my rights.
Because the concept of "rights" is entirely an ethical construct, some people might disagree that I have those rights. They are entitled to their point of view. This is not something where we can objectively prove that one view is "right" and the other "wrong". But if they try to force their point of view on me, they would then have a fight on their hands.
