Suicide

[Matthew]

I

[sumbloke]

I

[Bender]

Here's my view: I've been through some not-so-easy stuff, and still I never even contemplated suicide. To me, suicide was ridiculous. I always held on to the idea that the pain would end, that life would get better. It did. My life got a lot better, and now those times when life sucked major ass are just a bad memory. I'm sure that if you're considering suicide this much, then your problems are much worse than mine. But when you're at the bottom, the only way to go is up.

[libbonobo]

Before answering, can I say that you really need to consider the effectiveness of the therapy you've been getting. I don't think it can be remotely helpful therapeutically for your therapist to engage in an attempt to persuade you that suicide is inherently morally wrong.

 

All he said was that he's "gone through at least a dozen therapists who all tell me that I shouldn

Edited November 13, 2005 by libbonobo

[Masked Monkey]

Good can only exist in existence. And since "one should do what is good", one should choose to continue to exist. And if "wrong" is then defined as "not doing what one should, or doing what one should not", then it is wrong to commit suicide.

Your argument only works when taken from the standpoint of basing 'right' and 'wrong' on the seeking of 'good'. The identically formed argument for suicide could be based on defining 'right' as the avoidance of 'bad'.

 

:king: Snow Dog

 

But, hey, I'm in the camp that finds that bottle of pain pills real tempting sometimes.

Edited November 13, 2005 by Snow Dog

[Matthew]

All he said was that he's "gone through at least a dozen therapists who all tell me that I shouldn

[JamesSavik]

HI-college-guy: I've got a little experience with the other side of suicide: what it does to your friends and family. I won't address the family side, that's even worse, but it never goes away for friends. You wonder why, you blame yourself and you keep playing it back like a horrible DVD that is stuck in your head. You wonder what could have been done differently.

 

Ten years ago April, a dear friend killed himself. I loved him dearly and would have done anything I could have had I just known what was going on.

 

If you are asking me for permission, forget it. No act that creates so much pain can be in any way ethical.

[DomLuka]

If the therapists are going to always say that I shouldn't commit suicide, isn't it part and parcel of saying this to be able to explain why suicide is in itself the wrong thing to do?

 

Like I said, I've been through tons of therapists (school, religious, psychiatrists, psychologists, etc.) and yet none of them seem to help. I

[NickolasJames8]

Ok, Im breaking a promise that I made myself and everyone else on this forum, but this is so important....it's immoral to kill yourself because YOU ARE WORTH SOMETHING. Your life is worth more than what some therapist says, or what others are going to think about you. Please don't go through with it. This isn't something you can decide to change your mind about once you do it, and the people who love you wont ever be able to get it out of thier minds. At least give them a chance to love you for who you are....if they can't, there is someone in this world who will. You deserve to give yourself the chance to find that person and let them love you, and to love them back.

Also, what Dom said about not having to be promiscuous is true....the person who said that to you is wrong. You should just do what you feel comfortable with. Just please don't give up on yourself, or your life.

[Matthew]

So again, (and I have to say it) your therapists are idiots. Have you ever thought about some kind of group therapy for LGBT? People who are going through the same things might be more qualified to help you than therapists who think it

[libbonobo]

Matthew:

 

Your gay psychologist is completely whacked. Being gay does *NOT* necessarily entail multiple sexual partners, drugs, circuit parties, or anything like that. I'd venture to say that this is in fact the minority of what gay people are like. Gay people have completely normal jobs, completely normal pastimes, completely normal life goals, completely normal sizes and shapes, act completely normal, look completely normal,...gay people ARE completely normal. Your gay friends are right.

 

It's only the homophobes that try to confine us to a box. It is sad that so many of us experience this from our own families. I wish I could reassure you that your family would actually love you even after you came out to them, but there are degenerates that would reject even their own flesh and blood. Still, if they do reject you, that says bad things only about them, not you. And truthfully, I think we often don't give our families enough credit. I didn't. I agree with Dom that it's more likely that your mom would prefer a gay son to a dead one.

 

Even if you can't see it now, there is hope for the future. You *can* find your way and make a life for yourself. It's been done before, by gay people in all kinds of circumstances. You actually have a lot going for you -- you have smarts, you have friends, and you have enough of a desire to want to keep going to reach out, even if it's on an anonymous board.

 

You may feel that your life is not going to get better, but if you truly feel that trapped by your family's prejudice, and can't get past the fear of coming out to them to find out, at least wait until you're financially independent before deciding anything. Once you're financially independent, they have fewer ways in which to hurt you.

 

Please don't carry out your plan. I have no way to stop you, and, as a complete stranger on the internet, no connection by which to lend the appeal any emotional weight. But if you stop posting over the next 2 weeks, I will miss your presence & wonder.

 

 

 

 

Your argument only works when taken from the standpoint of basing 'right' and 'wrong' on the seeking of 'good'. The identically formed argument for suicide could be based on defining 'right' as the avoidance of 'bad'.

 

:king: Snow Dog

 

Well, even taking "one should avoid what is bad" as the axiom for moral behavior, it still remains invalid to compare quality of existence before and after death, if there is no existence after death to posit any quality for. That is, we can't say "they are suffering less than when they were alive" if there is no "they" about whom to posit degree of suffering.

 

Or, to revisit the "vacuously true" bit in purely set theoretical terms, the empty set is a subset of ANY set. Thus, while {x : x does not exist} is a subset of {x : x is not suffering}, it is ALSO a subset of {x : x is suffering abominably}.

 

So, for the person who believes there is no afterlife, it's not actually an argument *for* suicide to talk about avoidance of 'bad', because you cannot validly say that a nonexistent thing is avoiding 'bad'. (Or, if you say that it is vacuously true, then it is also vacuously true to say that the 'bad' is a million times worse.) It's only if existence continues after death that avoidance of 'bad' can be a possible argument for suicide.

[Masked Monkey]

Matthew:

 

Your gay psychologist is completely whacked. Being gay does *NOT* necessarily entail multiple sexual partners, drugs, circuit parties, or anything like that. I'd venture to say that this is in fact the minority of what gay people are like. Gay people have completely normal jobs, completely normal pastimes, completely normal life goals, completely normal sizes and shapes, act completely normal, look completely normal,...gay people ARE completely normal. Your gay friends are right.

 

It's only the homophobes that try to confine us to a box. It is sad that so many of us experience this from our own families. I wish I could reassure you that your family would actually love you even after you came out to them, but there are degenerates that would reject even their own flesh and blood. Still, if they do reject you, that says bad things only about them, not you. And truthfully, I think we often don't give our families enough credit. I didn't. I agree with Dom that it's more likely that your mom would prefer a gay son to a dead one.

 

Even if you can't see it now, there is hope for the future. You *can* find your way and make a life for yourself. It's been done before, by gay people in all kinds of circumstances. You actually have a lot going for you -- you have smarts, you have friends, and you have enough of a desire to want to keep going to reach out, even if it's on an anonymous board.

 

You may feel that your life is not going to get better, but if you truly feel that trapped by your family's prejudice, and can't get past the fear of coming out to them to find out, at least wait until you're financially independent before deciding anything. Once you're financially independent, they have fewer ways in which to hurt you.

 

Please don't carry out your plan. I have no way to stop you, and, as a complete stranger on the internet, no connection by which to lend the appeal any emotional weight. But if you stop posting over the next 2 weeks, I will miss your presence & wonder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, even taking "one should avoid what is bad" as the axiom for moral behavior, it still remains invalid to compare quality of existence before and after death, if there is no existence after death to posit any quality for. That is, we can't say "they are suffering less than when they were alive" if there is no "they" about whom to posit degree of suffering.

 

Or, to revisit the "vacuously true" bit in purely set theoretical terms, the empty set is a subset of ANY set. Thus, while {x : x does not exist} is a subset of {x : x is not suffering}, it is ALSO a subset of {x : x is suffering abominably}.

 

So, for the person who believes there is no afterlife, it's not actually an argument *for* suicide to talk about avoidance of 'bad', because you cannot validly say that a nonexistent thing is avoiding 'bad'. (Or, if you say that it is vacuously true, then it is also vacuously true to say that the 'bad' is a million times worse.) It's only if existence continues after death that avoidance of 'bad' can be a possible argument for suicide.

The point is not that these mythical 'others' would suffer anything, in fact they are irrelevant, but that the individual suffering would end. It is based on the premise that non-existance is better than existance in our physically realizable, corporeal world.

[Matthew]

I just thought I'd clear this up since there's so much talk about families. I told my mother I was gay at the age of 12. She told me I was just confusedcried for about five hours in her room, came out and we had dinner. It hasn't been mentioned since. She's always asking when I'll bring home some nice girl and talking about how evil the fags are. My siblings don't know but have related in their own ways how disgusted they are with gays. So, I have told her, she's sort of in denial.

[NickolasJames8]

If your mom is in denial or doesnt accept you, that's her loss....I know Im not in your position, but you still deserve to be happy. I really feel like you owe it to yourself to at least try to fnd happiness and go to one of the meetings.....what's the worst thing that could happen?? You might meet someone and hit it off?? Or maybe you'll make friends in there with someone who knows how you feel?? Like I said before, your life is worth it.

[JamesSavik]

Your gay psychologist is completely whacked. Being gay does *NOT* necessarily entail multiple sexual partners, drugs, circuit parties, or anything like that. I'd venture to say that this is in fact the minority of what gay people are like.

 

 

I have to second this Matthew. I'm a few years older than you and lived through the eighties/early ninties. I watched AIDS devastate my generation. While people aren't dropping like flies anymore because of improved treatments, only the very foolish or sex addicts are going to behave in this manner.

 

Another thing that I think will help a lot is to get the fundamentalist nonsense out of your head. You've been fed a line of BS about what gay people are like. YES. There are some pretty F-ed up gay people but str8s aren't all saints either. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with the content of your character.

 

My opinion, for what it is worth, go to the gay social group. Don't screw around or you'll get the reputation of a slut. Do meet some people so you'll have someone to talk to and you won't feel so alone.

[DomLuka]

I just thought I'd clear this up since there's so much talk about families. I told my mother I was gay at the age of 12. She told me I was just confusedcried for about five hours in her room, came out and we had dinner. It hasn't been mentioned since. She's always asking when I'll bring home some nice girl and talking about how evil the fags are. My siblings don't know but have related in their own ways how disgusted they are with gays. So, I have told her, she's sort of in denial.

 

So, maybe your mom is going to be an issue if you come out. People stuck in their beliefs can be hard to get around at times. There is a chance that she really did think you were confused at 12, though. Parents often see their children as just that, children. She might have had no idea that you were capable of making a decision like that for yourself at 12.

 

But still, the whole suicide thing seems... well, stupid. (I want to say I hope you don

[libbonobo]

The point is not that these mythical 'others' would suffer anything, in fact they are irrelevant, but that the individual suffering would end. It is based on the premise that non-existance is better than existance in our physically realizable, corporeal world.

 

But that's exactly the problem, nonexistence is not comparable to existence. To say non-existence is better than existence is precisely what is the myth or fairy-tale.

[Masked Monkey]

But that's exactly the problem, nonexistence is not comparable to existence. To say non-existence is better than existence is precisely what is the myth or fairy-tale.

Conversely, to say that existance is better is likewise mythical. Your only basis of argument is that we currently exist, thus making 'better'

[libbonobo]

Conversely, to say that existance is better is likewise mythical. Your only basis of argument is that we currently exist, thus making 'better'

 

Right! You can't make any better or worse comparisons between existence and nonexistence. Better and worse comparisons can only be made on things that exist.

 

That's all I was trying to say: the person who believes there is nothing after death has no basis to say that there is more good (or less bad) after death. It's only someone who believes that existence continues after death who could make such a comparison.

 

This was in response to sumbloke's assertion that there is no moral objection to suicide except religious ones. In fact, it's the other way around, and it's the atheist who should be complaining that comparisons of whether things are better or worse after death are fairy-tale comparisons.

[Bender]

Matthew, perhaps I should tell you about the things I have dealt with, and then you can see why I can honestly say things will get better.

 

I had a mean and abusive father who hated me for my, to put it blatantly, homosexuality. He did not know that I was gay, but my lisp and my infatuation with pink was enough to make him hate me for being me. He loved (and loves) my sister to death, and never even touched her. She was the good child in his eyes. I was the scum on the bottom of his shoes. He abused me, both physically and emotionally, and I still have a hard time dealing with older males because of him. I'm not going to say that there were never good times, because there were. Like when he was taking my sister to the amusement park and my mom made him drag me along. My parents are divorced now, thank God, and it's been a while since I last saw him.

 

I was made fun of a LOT when I was younger, by my male classmates. I started hearing the word "Fag" in my sleep. The people who made fun of me never actually fought with me, but they did gang up on me a lot in dodgeball. They never stopped making fun of me.

 

The climax of my father's abuse and my classmate's offense came in fifth grade, and it became so bad that I suppressed almost an entire year of my life from my memory. I remember crying myself to sleep every night becuase crying was the only way to get the emotion out.

 

But now, I have a lot of friends, mostly female but a few male. And the male friends that I have are very close. My father is mostly out of my life, my mother is driving everyone around her crazy, and everything that happened in the past is staying in the past. I am now (more or less) normal, and not even close to being suicidal. Even during my ordeal, I wasn't suicidal. This post is not to gain pity, but to tell you that it will get better, it just might take a little time. Who knows, you just might meet your one true love pretty soon, and then you'll never need anything else as long as you live. Not that I'd know, I'm still a virgin...

[sumbloke]

All he said was that he's "gone through at least a dozen therapists who all tell me that I shouldn’t commit suicide", which is in fact completely appropriate, and that "not one has been able to tell me why it is inherently wrong to kill oneself". The latter suggests that he did the asking, and that none of them took him up on getting into that conversation. So I wouldn't suggest stopping therapy.

 

Apologies to HiCollegeGuy. Libbonobo is quite right. I didn't read the original post with enough care and responded both too quickly and also way beyond my competence. I shouldn't be offering advice about the therapy that anyone is or isn't receiving.

 

Moreover, I wouldn't make a blanket statement about what would or would not be helpful in therapy. What is helpful in getting through to people varies from person to person. I agree with you that for many, such general moral discussions would indeed not be actively helpful and would be a waste of time being paid for. But for some, it might actually be helpful. They might really want to know. Maybe hi_college_guy could be one such person. He's here outside of therapy asking.

 

Yes. Agreed. I was just kind of shocked by the image that I created of HiCollegeGuy in a moral philosophy seminar when he wanted to be in therapy!

 

[...snip...]

This is a very common attitude, which I have always thought is completely turned on its head. If one thinks about it, it's actually the atheists who have the absolute moral reason not to end their own lives.

 

Why? Because people usually end their own lives because they are suffering in some way, and they think that ending their lives will end their suffering.

 

If there's an afterlife, and that afterlife is not filled with suffering, then it can be validly said that "they are no longer suffering." There is still a "they" to speak of, and they are not suffering.

 

On the other hand, if there is *no* afterlife, then despite common parlance, it is actually an error to say that "they are no longer suffering": there is no "they" to speak of, to posit whether "they" are suffering or not.

 

Or, if you want to be technical, you could assert that "they are no longer suffering" is vacuously true, in the sense that "if they exist, then they are not suffering" is vacuously true because the hypothesis is false. However, asserting that "they are suffering even more than they were in life" would then *also* be vacuously true: "if they exist, then they are suffering even more than they were in life" is also vacuously true because the hypothesis is false.

 

First, I really did mean absolute - that is not relative to any particular circumstance. Without an external source of moral authority I'd find it difficult to conceive of an absolute proscription against suicide.

 

Your point about identity and suffering makes some sense to me but one - it relies on a notion of subject that is divorced from object - of a consciousness or agent without any object of consciousness or goals of agency. This "disembodied" subject exists without suffering or any other experience. You see, I don't think it is just vacuously that things that don't exist don't suffer - I think it's a very important perspective especially for a suffering being. If your suffering is bad enough then maybe ending it at the expense of your identity is a desirable outcome.

 

The counterfactual arguments you give really do seem to me to vacuously true though and I'm not sure they have any practical moral import. If the devil were elected president of the US it would be a very good thing for the country is true in just the same way (but you have to notice it's the conditional itself that's true, not the consequent!).

 

That is, if there is existence both before and after death, then it is valid to compare the quality of existence before and after death. If there is no existence after death, then there is no valid comparison between the quality of existence before and after death, since there is no existence after death to posit any quality for.

Returning to the original question,

 

Again, I don't think the comparison which requires a persisting subject - someone who is identifiable for comparison before and after death - is relevant. What is relevant is the ending of suffering.

 

Well, independent of religious belief, one could state axiomatically (or tautologically) that "one should do what is good", including what is good for oneself. Where different religious or moral beliefs come in is in characterizing what is good and weighing the relative value of different goods. For example, what are the (relative) goods in pleasure vs. health? Job satisfaction vs. money? etc.

 

Sure, and the a proscription against suicide becomes relative to whatever you decide is the good life. I certainly agree with that.

 

In the case of life vs. death, the religious, or, more precisely, those who believe there is an afterlife, have the dilemma that good can exist both in life and in death. The atheists, or, more precisely, those who believe there is no afterlife, have no such dilemma, as shown above. There is no good in nonexistence -- *nothing* exists in nonexistence. Good can only exist in existence. And since "one should do what is good", one should choose to continue to exist. And if "wrong" is then defined as "not doing what one should, or doing what one should not", then it is wrong to commit suicide.

 

We disagree. I don't think that it requires that any individual in particular exists in order that we can say that some situation is good or less good. I think it conceivable that a situation where some individual ceases to exist may be less bad if on their ceasing to exist they cease suffering. We mustn't conflate the nonexistance of an individual with the anihilation of the whole context - nor should we limit moral judgment to determining what is positively good - what is less bad is also morally relevant. So, for me, my coming to non-exist can plausibly end my suffering which is less bad for me, even if as a consequence I don't experience any positive good so to speak.

 

Anyway, I have to get back to reading Kant.

 

HiCollegeGuy - I know indirectly that depression can be overcome - and Libbonobo is right on the mark. I saw someone get over it throught a combination of anti-depressants and cognitive behavioural therapy. It's well worth staying the course.

Edited November 14, 2005 by sumbloke

[glomph]

I can't see how suicide could be an option for a Domaholic.

 

There's maybe 15 or 20 chapters of "Desert Dropping" to go, and then there's the sequel to TLW about Dennis, and Dom's thinking of trying another short story, but it could turn into an epic.

 

By then Dom might be in the mood to write the story about Taylor.

 

Just the thought of dying without ever finding out how the stories come out makes me want to drive a lot more carefully, etc.

[libbonobo]

First, I really did mean absolute - that is not relative to any particular circumstance. Without an external source of moral authority I'd find it difficult to conceive of an absolute proscription against suicide.

 

Well, whatever your belief system, atheist, theist, or otherwise, logic and rationality are absolute guiding principles. They may not embody *all* truth, but no truth can contradict logic and rationality. The point is that if one is an atheist, the assumption of nonexistence after death makes suicide illogical/irrational.

 

Your point about identity and suffering makes some sense to me but one - it relies on a notion of subject that is divorced from object - of a consciousness or agent without any object of consciousness or goals of agency. This "disembodied" subject exists without suffering or any other experience....

 

No no no. Something is not getting translated. This is the OPPOSITE of what I am saying. The point is that for the atheist, there *ISN'T* any subject at all, whether unified or divorced from object, embodied or disembodied. Therefore, for an atheist to say of a decedent formerly named John that "John is not suffering", what they are really saying is that "nonexistent fairy-tale John is not suffering."

 

If your objection about disembodied subjects is against the nonexistent fairy-tale John, then THAT is completely appropriate. The logical atheist with the courage of his convictions will reject all fairy-tale statements.

 

You see, I don't think it is just vacuously that things that don't exist don't suffer - I think it's a very important perspective especially for a suffering being. If your suffering is bad enough then maybe ending it at the expense of your identity is a desirable outcome.

 

Let's backup a step. A statement is vacuous or empty when it makes assertions about things or situations that don't exist. That is, vacuous statements are statements making assertions about members of the empty set.

 

Vacuous statements are held to be true (vacuously true) because the empty set is a subset of every set. You can assert any property P that you wish for nonexistent objects, because members of the empty set are also members of {x : x has property P}, no matter what property P is.

 

To review: a statement "x has property P" is vacuous and vacuously true if x does not exist. For it to be true in other than a vacuous way, x really has to exist and really has to have property P. But if we are agreeing that x does not exist, then the statement CAN'T be true in any other way than vacuously.

 

So to claim any more than vacuous truth for a statement that something which doesn't exist isn't suffering is simply wrong.

 

 

The counterfactual arguments you give really do seem to me to vacuously true though and I'm not sure they have any practical moral import. If the devil were elected president of the US it would be a very good thing for the country is true in just the same way (but you have to notice it's the conditional itself that's true, not the consequent!).

 

However counterintuitive it may seem, you can validly assert ANYTHING AT ALL about nonexistent objects. There is *NO* logical basis at all for preferring any of these vacuous fairy-tale statements over any other, and they all have exactly the same moral import, as they all have to do with the relative degree of suffering before and after death, which is the moral basis for suicide:

 

(a) "Nonexistent fairy-tale John is not suffering."

( "Nonexistent fairy-tale John is suffering horribly."

© "Nonexistent fairy-tale John is suffering less than really existent John was suffering before death."

(d) "Nonexistent fairy-tale John is suffering a million times more than really existent John was suffering before death."

 

If you ascribe importance to (a), logic compels you to ascribe the same importance to (,©, and (d).

 

But again, the logical atheist with the courage of his convictions will reject all such fairy-tale statements. He will not be influenced by statements such as "He's in a better place now", which are commonly uttered by people who *DO* believe that people continue on after death in really existent, non-fairy-tale fashion. To the atheist, those are all fairy-tales to be rejected.

 

Again, I don't think the comparison which requires a persisting subject - someone who is identifiable for comparison before and after death - is relevant. What is relevant is the ending of suffering.

 

But it absolutely does. No one else's suffering is the relevant one besides the one committing suicide. John's committing suicide does not end my suffering or anyone else's suffering, and indeed might even add to it. The comparison of John's suffering before and after death is the only relevant comparison, and the atheist cannot make this comparison except in fairy-tale.

 

I don't think that it requires that any individual in particular exists in order that we can say that some situation is good or less good.

 

For the one particular individual contemplating suicide, *his* context is exactly the relevant one. See above.

 

I think it conceivable that a situation where some individual ceases to exist may be less bad if on their ceasing to exist they cease suffering.

 

This is so insidious! Again, "less bad" refers to a fairy-tale comparison.

 

We mustn't conflate the nonexistance of an individual with the anihilation of the whole context - nor should we limit moral judgment to determining what is positively good - what is less bad is also morally relevant. So, for me, my coming to non-exist can plausibly end my suffering which is less bad for me, even if as a consequence I don't experience any positive good so to speak.

 

More good, less bad, doesn't matter. The comparison is still a fairy-tale one. "[my] coming to non-exist can plausibly end my suffering which is less bad for me" is yet another fairy-tale comparison.

[Masked Monkey]

Under the assumption of no afterlife, "John" does not exist after the successful suicide attempt, therefore nothing can be deduced about his state of 'happiness' or 'sadness'; in fact, as libbonobo points out, any such statement is vacuous . HOWEVER, it would be fair to say "he pain that John was in has ended" without making any statements about the current (and vacuous) state of John. As John's life has ended, any pain he is or isn't feeling, based on any existance or nonexistance, is (tautologically) of a wholly different quality.

 

Even if you assume an afterlife the statement is true, and depending on your beliefs, he may be in more pain, but it is still different pain, ergo, the pain that John was in has ended.

 

:king: Snow Dog

P.S. got that pain med refill today .

Edited November 14, 2005 by Snow Dog

[Matthew]

Well, now the situation has taken a turn for the worst. I was telling a friend(or so I thought) about how I'm feeling. He talked to a counselor at school and it went up the chain and came back down and now they're trying to evict me from the school dorms. Life just seems to be getting constantly worse. I'm so sick of it.