Suicideisnirvana
Specialist
- Aug 4, 2018
- 312
I know i'm preaching to the choir here, i've tried to post this first on the unpopular opinion sub in reddit, but it was removed because "it concerns mental health", you can't even argue for an unpopular opinion in an unpopularopinion sub when it's about suicide. It shows you how extreme and all-embracing the prohibition society is.
Here is a C/C of my post for those interrested :
"
You can't even argue for the right to chose in an ... unpopularopinion sub.
C/P of my post :
"As the title said, i think that the right to die should be a fundamental human right, i will argue for that position first before responding to some of the most common arguments against the right to chose.
Let's start with two irrefutable facts, those will be the foundations of my arguments. Nobody chose to be born, life was imposed on us, whether you find life enjoyable or awful, meaningful or valueless is another story. The second fact is that we have absolutely no access to other's people mind, nothing can give us the subjective, live, private access to other's states of mind and level of enjoyment/suffering. Each of us is to a certain extent - and in the most important aspects - invisible to the others, we can communicate and extrapolate, feel empathy or utter disinsterest for the feelings and mental states of others, yet nothing can make us feel how they feel, we only get an image, a mirage of some sort because it can only be apprehended by us through the prism of our own experience. Nothing can give us access to the subjective states of others. Another subsequent realization ensues from this : we can never know for certain the extent of the gradients/levels of pain and pleasures that are possible, actual, happening right now in other minds, we can only extrapolate based on our own feelings. We may think that we had a rough patch in life that can't be surpassed and resurfaced with strength and grace, that we felt the uttermost ecstasy available to any human or the worse pain possible, but that's just an extrapolation, we don't imagine how awful/extreme mental suffering can be, or how pleasurable some states can be. For the purpose of my argument, what matters is the worse state of suffering : we don't know how awful the possible states of suffering are. Not only we project our own suffering/enjoyment on others, but we also extrapolate our strenghts, temperament, will-power etc.
So while my first argument would be the classical "Right to personal autonomy", the second argument i give for suicide is based on epistemological uncertainty, it's an intractable one : As we can't fathom how awful the worse mental pains can be for others, as we don't have access to the whole gradients of suffering, we should let people decide for themselves. And i don't mean by that leaving them to their proper device, nor providing suicide booths for them, what i propose is something in between : No interference, legal or physical. So that painless/effective suicide drugs are available in the market (Maybe after a period of wait filter those who just have a very temporary difficulty ? )
Now, i will respond to some of the most common arguments against suicide.
1 : A lot of people who tried to commit suicide regretted it.
This argument is very disengenuous as long as it operates in a prohibition society where the means of a painless/effective suicide are hard to come by and the costs of trying are high (stigma/forced hospitalization etc), for many reasons.
- The most pertinent predictor for suicidability is ... having attempted suicide, considering that first there is a selection bias as some people who have attempted less lethal means of suicide may be less intent or dying that others, and that failing a suicide may induce feeling of learned helplesness, loss of confidence (i can't succeed at anything, even at dying !), and that people have to express regrets/contentment with life if they are to be freed from forced hospitalization/get along with family and friends etc, add to that survival mechanisms and the fear of missing again, the fact that with all those powerful prohibitive forces attempting suicide is still the most pertinent predictor for suicide is telling, and shows that the regret narrative doesn't tell the whole story. Also, The same ways polls about the % of hommosexuals in muslim countries if you have to reveal your identity would be extremely unreliable, declarations of regrets in a prohibition society are extremely unreliable too.
If you force people at any course of action, some of them will be satisfied with the result and thank you for forcing their hands. Make divorce illegal and some people would be thankful of still being in marriage they've come to appreciated and value, be a tiger authoritarian mother and some children will be thankful for becoming a prodigee/successful person thanks to you, prevent people from buying cannabis and some of them will be thankful for never touching drugs (even if the majority hates it), force people to go to university and some of those who get good pay/good jobs may be thankful for it. yet, do we conclude from that that we should force people on certain courses of action ? Anything you do you may regret, like Kierkegaard said "Marry or don't marry, you will regret both", it's part of the human condition to have regrets. But what about the people who want to be divorced, who don't want to go to university, who want to go to cannabis, who are suffering every day and want to quit ?
2 : ) Suicide is definitive.
- This is a double-edged sword, for it means also that it's impossible to regret the decision. It's only by assuming that life is great/valuable in itself and for everybody that this argument holds. Also, it's not like we aren't dying anyway.
3 : ) Suicide is never rational/Mental illness.
- Says who ? Unless you define rational as "Being attached to life" whichs begs the question, the argument doesn't hold. It's perfectly rational to want to die if you are constantly suffering while getting little pleasure and meaning from life. Who is the supreme authority to define what's rational and what's not ? Especially when psychological bias like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias are a thing, and considering research in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory , one can list as much arguments for the irrationality of suicide as for the irrationality of living. For the mental illness part, i should remind you that the "chemical imbalance" theory is just a theory, we still don't even know what depression is exactly, how to define it in a rigorous, systematic way. Hommosexuality was considered a mental illness just some decades ago. But even if we accept that it's a mental illness, what then ? Some peeople seems to imagine that if it's a mental illness, you just go to see a shrink, get a therapy or some pills, and you're cured ! Nothing is further from the truth, and even if you accepted the "chemical imbalance" theory, there is this thing called "Treatment resistant depression" because .... it's resistant to treatment, and a significant of people diagnosed with depression have it. So, what difference does it make to the treatment-resistent depressed person whether you define it as a mental illness, a disgust for life, or bad life events/personal situation ? From the perspective of that person, it's merely semantics and idle babbling. If fact, imagine an idealist (as in the philosophical position that only mind/consciousness exist) telling somone that he doesn't have a physical impairment, but that his suffering is in the mind, and caused by the mind, even if that was true, if there is no way to change that suffering, what difference does it make ? Anti-suicide proponents always smuggle the assumption "it's curable" with the affirmation "it's a mental illness". A lucid examination of the facts shows that it doesn't follow.
4 : ) Some people have other who are dependent on them.
- This is the only argument i agree with, with the caveat that it only applies to responsibilities one have chosen. So it counts for children, but not for parents and spouses, because no-fault divorce is actually a thing and as long as it's accepted from the start by both parties that the marriage won't last. In the case where there is a strong/serious commitment from the start, the suicide may be problematic but not more than divorce. If divorce is considered a fundamental human right, suicide should be one too. "
"
Here is a C/C of my post for those interrested :
"
You can't even argue for the right to chose in an ... unpopularopinion sub.
C/P of my post :
"As the title said, i think that the right to die should be a fundamental human right, i will argue for that position first before responding to some of the most common arguments against the right to chose.
Let's start with two irrefutable facts, those will be the foundations of my arguments. Nobody chose to be born, life was imposed on us, whether you find life enjoyable or awful, meaningful or valueless is another story. The second fact is that we have absolutely no access to other's people mind, nothing can give us the subjective, live, private access to other's states of mind and level of enjoyment/suffering. Each of us is to a certain extent - and in the most important aspects - invisible to the others, we can communicate and extrapolate, feel empathy or utter disinsterest for the feelings and mental states of others, yet nothing can make us feel how they feel, we only get an image, a mirage of some sort because it can only be apprehended by us through the prism of our own experience. Nothing can give us access to the subjective states of others. Another subsequent realization ensues from this : we can never know for certain the extent of the gradients/levels of pain and pleasures that are possible, actual, happening right now in other minds, we can only extrapolate based on our own feelings. We may think that we had a rough patch in life that can't be surpassed and resurfaced with strength and grace, that we felt the uttermost ecstasy available to any human or the worse pain possible, but that's just an extrapolation, we don't imagine how awful/extreme mental suffering can be, or how pleasurable some states can be. For the purpose of my argument, what matters is the worse state of suffering : we don't know how awful the possible states of suffering are. Not only we project our own suffering/enjoyment on others, but we also extrapolate our strenghts, temperament, will-power etc.
So while my first argument would be the classical "Right to personal autonomy", the second argument i give for suicide is based on epistemological uncertainty, it's an intractable one : As we can't fathom how awful the worse mental pains can be for others, as we don't have access to the whole gradients of suffering, we should let people decide for themselves. And i don't mean by that leaving them to their proper device, nor providing suicide booths for them, what i propose is something in between : No interference, legal or physical. So that painless/effective suicide drugs are available in the market (Maybe after a period of wait filter those who just have a very temporary difficulty ? )
Now, i will respond to some of the most common arguments against suicide.
1 : A lot of people who tried to commit suicide regretted it.
This argument is very disengenuous as long as it operates in a prohibition society where the means of a painless/effective suicide are hard to come by and the costs of trying are high (stigma/forced hospitalization etc), for many reasons.
- The most pertinent predictor for suicidability is ... having attempted suicide, considering that first there is a selection bias as some people who have attempted less lethal means of suicide may be less intent or dying that others, and that failing a suicide may induce feeling of learned helplesness, loss of confidence (i can't succeed at anything, even at dying !), and that people have to express regrets/contentment with life if they are to be freed from forced hospitalization/get along with family and friends etc, add to that survival mechanisms and the fear of missing again, the fact that with all those powerful prohibitive forces attempting suicide is still the most pertinent predictor for suicide is telling, and shows that the regret narrative doesn't tell the whole story. Also, The same ways polls about the % of hommosexuals in muslim countries if you have to reveal your identity would be extremely unreliable, declarations of regrets in a prohibition society are extremely unreliable too.
If you force people at any course of action, some of them will be satisfied with the result and thank you for forcing their hands. Make divorce illegal and some people would be thankful of still being in marriage they've come to appreciated and value, be a tiger authoritarian mother and some children will be thankful for becoming a prodigee/successful person thanks to you, prevent people from buying cannabis and some of them will be thankful for never touching drugs (even if the majority hates it), force people to go to university and some of those who get good pay/good jobs may be thankful for it. yet, do we conclude from that that we should force people on certain courses of action ? Anything you do you may regret, like Kierkegaard said "Marry or don't marry, you will regret both", it's part of the human condition to have regrets. But what about the people who want to be divorced, who don't want to go to university, who want to go to cannabis, who are suffering every day and want to quit ?
2 : ) Suicide is definitive.
- This is a double-edged sword, for it means also that it's impossible to regret the decision. It's only by assuming that life is great/valuable in itself and for everybody that this argument holds. Also, it's not like we aren't dying anyway.
3 : ) Suicide is never rational/Mental illness.
- Says who ? Unless you define rational as "Being attached to life" whichs begs the question, the argument doesn't hold. It's perfectly rational to want to die if you are constantly suffering while getting little pleasure and meaning from life. Who is the supreme authority to define what's rational and what's not ? Especially when psychological bias like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias are a thing, and considering research in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory , one can list as much arguments for the irrationality of suicide as for the irrationality of living. For the mental illness part, i should remind you that the "chemical imbalance" theory is just a theory, we still don't even know what depression is exactly, how to define it in a rigorous, systematic way. Hommosexuality was considered a mental illness just some decades ago. But even if we accept that it's a mental illness, what then ? Some peeople seems to imagine that if it's a mental illness, you just go to see a shrink, get a therapy or some pills, and you're cured ! Nothing is further from the truth, and even if you accepted the "chemical imbalance" theory, there is this thing called "Treatment resistant depression" because .... it's resistant to treatment, and a significant of people diagnosed with depression have it. So, what difference does it make to the treatment-resistent depressed person whether you define it as a mental illness, a disgust for life, or bad life events/personal situation ? From the perspective of that person, it's merely semantics and idle babbling. If fact, imagine an idealist (as in the philosophical position that only mind/consciousness exist) telling somone that he doesn't have a physical impairment, but that his suffering is in the mind, and caused by the mind, even if that was true, if there is no way to change that suffering, what difference does it make ? Anti-suicide proponents always smuggle the assumption "it's curable" with the affirmation "it's a mental illness". A lucid examination of the facts shows that it doesn't follow.
4 : ) Some people have other who are dependent on them.
- This is the only argument i agree with, with the caveat that it only applies to responsibilities one have chosen. So it counts for children, but not for parents and spouses, because no-fault divorce is actually a thing and as long as it's accepted from the start by both parties that the marriage won't last. In the case where there is a strong/serious commitment from the start, the suicide may be problematic but not more than divorce. If divorce is considered a fundamental human right, suicide should be one too. "
"
Last edited:
