In some cases it is. Older people and people in chronic pain, people with no future ahead of them. Mostly though, they are in a highly abnormal state of mind, right? I don't think depression brings with it a realistic view of the future.
That's very true, I hadn't considered the "people relying on you" angle.
There's a lot goin' on in the article you just posted. Perhaps we could focus on one or more arguments which you find inconsistent, or which you do not find sound for whatever reason.
I am not saying that Hume is inconsistent; far from it, as his essay is the best essay on suicide I have ever read. I am saying that very often, when someone presents an argument against suicide, they argue using principles that they do not apply consistently. For example, when people say that it upsets other people very much to commit suicide, and therefore the person ought not commit suicide, they do not apply this same reasoning to other areas of life, such as whether or not they will have premarital sex, thus possibly greatly upsetting their parents, or getting a tattoo, or changing their religion, or marrying someone of whom one's family and friends strongly disapprove, etc. If strongly upsetting other people were so strong an argument that one should therefore not commit suicide, then many other aspects of one's life would also be under the control of the whims of others whom one happens to know. It is just a bad argument to say that it upsets others and therefore one ought not do it.
Of course, insofar as one does do something to other people, it is a matter of concern for others, but it does not apply to things not actually done to them. To clarify that, I will use an example. Suppose there is a person who is gay, and the person's parents are strongly homophobic, and believe that that is sinful and will cause the person to be damned to hellfire for eternity. That does not mean that the person is obligated to refrain from homosexual activity, no matter how it makes other people feel. If you like, we can alter the example to something that more religionists would accept, such as converting from the "false" religion of one's parents to the "one true religion". It just does not matter how much it upsets the parents and other relatives and friends or anyone else in society; it is the person's choice to do this. It would be different if the example were something affecting others in a nonemotional way, as, for example, if someone wanted to rape and torture others, but in the examples I am using, no one is affected in a nonemotional way at all, whereas using thumbscrews on someone affects that someone more than just emotionally. Suicide, absent obligations to support others, only affects others emotionally. So it is just their tough luck, just like if you decide to marry someone of whom they do not approve, or any other thing you do of which they do not approve.
You are really lumping the pain caused by the death of loved one in with the pain caused by someone going against permission to get a tattoo? All pain is not equal, and so, it may not be inconsistent to say, "I think it's worse to kill yourself because of how your parents would feel, than to get a tattoo because of how your parents would feel".
It is not necessarily a bad argument to say that it upsets others and therefore we ought not do it. Again, back to consideration.
Take note also that the inconsistency of someone's actions or beliefs, has nothing to do with whether the argument is good or bad.
"Studies by psychologists Alloy and Abramson (1979) and Dobson and Franche (1989) suggested that depressed people appear to have a more realistic perception of their importance, reputation, locus of control, and abilities than those who are not depressed.
People without depression are more likely to have inflated self-images and look at the world through "rose-colored glasses", thanks to cognitive dissonance elimination and a variety of other defense mechanisms."
Of course, I don't anyone advocates depression! But, I think it's important to find that 'grey-area'. Don't be too damn happy and uplifting about everything, but don't wallow in torment all the time either. Of course, with that said, I acknowledge some people do not have much control of their emotions due to chemical imbalances.
Now, do you think that people are morally obligated to have consideration for others such that they refrain from getting tattoos if it upsets their families enough? If not, then it is inconsistent to apply that principle to suicide, and therefore you would be wrong if you did so, no matter what the truth is regarding this matter.
Now, do you think that people are morally obligated to have consideration for others such that they refrain from getting tattoos if it upsets their families enough?
I think people make too much of others committing suicide, because many of them have been brainwashed into believing it is sinful and gets one straight to hell. That is the real cause of the attitude toward suicide in our society.
Depression causes suicide but what causes depression? Chemical imbalance seems to me a cop out. An easy way to avoid the various events and factors that cause the chemical imbalance whether those factors be violence or sexual abuse, dysfunctional families, drug abuse, a steady diet of TV and junk food, unemployment, and whatever larger societal issues that contribute to such things. Depression is the middle man that needs to be eliminated if the real causes are to be addressed. Otherwise we will just be pumping our people full of Prozac like we are pumping our livestock full of antibiotics.
Yes, it is often common in our world to treat the symptoms while ignoring the causes, isn't it?
Well, it's hard to say if optimism brings a realistic view of the future, either. I always thought this was interesting:
Depressive Realism
"Studies by psychologists Alloy and Abramson (1979) and Dobson and Franche (1989) suggested that depressed people appear to have a more realistic perception of their importance, reputation, locus of control, and abilities than those who are not depressed.
People without depression are more likely to have inflated self-images and look at the world through "rose-colored glasses", thanks to cognitive dissonance elimination and a variety of other defense mechanisms."
Of course, I don't anyone advocates depression! But, I think it's important to find that 'grey-area'. Don't be too damn happy and uplifting about everything, but don't wallow in torment all the time either. Of course, with that said, I acknowledge some people do not have much control of their emotions due to chemical imbalances.
The results help to fit depressive realism, once an apparent anomaly, into the cognitive-distortion model of depression, Baker says. If depressed people do indeed ignore relevant information, this inattention to reality fits clinical results and theories showing that depression influences cognitive activity and the ability to maintain attention--even in nonclinical populations like the one in this study.
Experts welcome the chance to clear up past confusion. "Msetfi and her colleagues have shown that depressive realism is potentially a consequence of differences in simple information processing and not other more complex processes such as the protection of self-esteem," says Andy Baker, PhD, a cognitive psychologist at McGill University who studies how people judge how events go together.
Thus, Msetfi says it could be useful to train patients to interpret situations in the wider context of all possible information that could be relevant to judgment.
Baker is more circumspect about applying the new findings. First, he notes that depressive realism has appeared only in conditions of high density (the bulb comes on a lot) and zero contingency (no matter what the person does).
"Thus there is no real generality to this phenomenon," he says.
Second, he notes that although participants in these studies "are undeniably sad and many of them are alienated, their level of functioning is quite high--they are generally not clinically depressed." Baker believes that studying this group may shed light on the mechanisms of clinical depression, but that calling them "depressed" obscures the fact that this research may or may not be relevant to the clinical population.
Lyn Abramson cautions, "Although the results of Msetfi et al are quite interesting, they do not explain away the phenomenon of depressive realism in [our] original experiment because [the original] depressed participants were doing what the experimenter asked them to do--figure out how much control they had during the experimental trials. Moreover, the Msetfi et al results don't explain why other factors such as whether an outcome is good or bad predict when depressive realism is observed."
Abramson hopes that this study inspires a second-generation wave of research on depressive realism.
Depression causes suicide but what causes depression? Chemical imbalance seems to me a cop out. An easy way to avoid the various events and factors that cause the chemical imbalance whether those factors be violence or sexual abuse, dysfunctional families, drug abuse, a steady diet of TV and junk food, unemployment, and whatever larger societal issues that contribute to such things. Depression is the middle man that needs to be eliminated if the real causes are to be addressed. Otherwise we will just be pumping our people full of Prozac like we are pumping our livestock full of antibiotics.
Indeed, if other branches of medicine were to follow the example of psychiatry, "pain" would be self-evidently an "illness", it would be "treated" exclusively with massively toxic doses of poorly tested painkillers, and anyone who questioned the diagnosis of "pain" would be accused of being superstitiously ignorant of modern, enlightened, scientific progress, and of callously denying the real suffering of patients diagnosed with "pain".
I have noticed some people with a bias against the medical establishment.
Wait, let me get this straight...
You present to me a particular case where the act of getting a tattoo would be taboo and greatly frowned upon, and then from there you somehow place the act of getting a tattoo on equal grounding to losing a loved one, and then thereby tell me I would be inconsistent if I didn't have the same answer for both.
Are you kidding me?
They could be being inconsiderate for getting a tattoo, sure. Is that enough to refrain from getting a tattoo? That depends on the person. Me personally, barring any odd circumstances? No.
But the pain felt from losing a loved on is different than the pain caused from getting a tattoo. Even in the cases you mention. Somehow you think we're arguing religion here. What I'm talking about has nothing to do with religion. I'm talking about the loss of life here, man. The loss of a loved one, especially a child.
Not everyone that believes suicide is wrong is brainwashed, my friend. I don't know why you have the impression everyone that is against suicide, in some particular circumstance, is advocating anything religious per se. ...
"To you it belongs to repine at providence, who foolishly imagine that you have no such power, and who must still prolong a hated being, tho' loaded with pain and sickness, with shame and poverty...
Different things upset different people. Consequently, some people doing some things does not upset their parents at all, some other people doing the same things upsets their parents a little, and some other people doing the same things upsets their parents greatly. Now, if things ought not be done based on the level of how much it upsets people, the thing being done is, in itself, totally irrelevant and immaterial to the issue.
That's not really true.
It doesn't go: bad thing happens --> unhappiness
It goes: bad thing happens --> belief about that thing --> unhappiness/other
Our beliefs and feeling have an effect on whether the events (which we can't control sometimes) make us unhappy or not. And our thoughts can effect our beliefs and feelings.
This is why therapy can be effective, and why 9 year olds shouldn't commit suicide.
Whether people have children or not affects the population, and that does affect you. Since we have more than enough people in the world now, the reality is that having children because you want them is more selfish than not having them because you don't want them. But this is going off topic.
Pretty much everything you do has an effect on those who care about you. But that does not mean that others have a right to run your life for you. You are (or should be) free to ruin your life if you want to do so. Many people do ruin their lives in various ways, and yet usually these things are not thought of in the same way as suicide. If I were to decide to do basically nothing but drink too much for the rest of my life, how do you think that would affect those who care about me? Do you seriously believe that that would be better for them than killing myself quickly? Do you believe that I should have the right to decide for myself if I will do basically nothing but drink or not?
And they can also lead long, miserable lives as well, though those who argue against suicide typically can't see that obvious fact. Many people do live long horrible lives, and they could have avoided living long horrible lives by cutting their lives short. Really, suicide is a better choice than many choices people have made, so it is absurd to condemn it more than those worse choices.
Suicide is never a "good" choice. Its an easy choice, but never a good one. It hurts others, and ends the possibility to receive joy. Life is hard, sometimes a lot harder than it has to be. But we have to deal with it.
Suicide is never a "good" choice.
Its an easy choice, but never a good one.
It hurts others, and ends the possibility to receive joy.
Life is hard, sometimes a lot harder than it has to be. But we have to deal with it.
How others feel is up to them, not you. They may be "hurt" by any action you take whatsoever, but you still must decide how you will run your life. Indeed, no matter what you do, someone is not going to like it.
Are you arguing that not just suicide, but any other choice of how to lead one's own life (including, say, sexual expression, and of course also including this decision not to go on leading one's own life) - in a word, authenticity - overrides all other moral considerations?
(I've ruled out two other possibilities as very unlikely: (i) you are proposing a special moral theory applicable to the question of suicide alone; (ii) you are saying that it doesn't, or it shouldn't, matter how a person's actions affect anyone else.)
I'm interested in this question, because I have allowed moral (and other) considerations to override what seemed as if it would be the authentic decision to end my own life. Authenticity can be traded off against other considerations; but it is terrible to have to do so. (I'm not proposing any theory of my own here, just sketching a bit of personal background, in case the intent of my question isn't clear.)
Pyrrho wrote:Different things upset different people. Consequently, some people doing some things does not upset their parents at all, some other people doing the same things upsets their parents a little, and some other people doing the same things upsets their parents greatly. Now, if things ought not be done based on the level of how much it upsets people, the thing being done is, in itself, totally irrelevant and immaterial to the issue.
Why can't an argument be made for each and every family, for each and every instance?
The same thing may be wrong in one case, but not be wrong in another, due to the specifics of each case. Why is that unreasonable?
I prefer not to look at "getting a tattoo" or "committing suicide" as generalities. Instead, I prefer to look at the specific cases. Suicide may not be wrong at all in some cases, but it could be a completely inconsiderate or irresponsible act in another.
Perhaps you are too scared to be inconsistent, that you are applying a general nature to these actions. I don't think we should do that with these sorts of things. But maybe this is a personal thing: I'm comfortable being considered inconsistent, if it allows me to consider each case individually. So, you're right about the tattoo thing - I would really have to evaluate that household to come to a conclusion I would be comfortable with.
But if the matter is very important to you, then how others feel about it is relatively insignificant, providing that we are talking about something not done to anyone else.
Thus, getting a tattoo, marrying without the approval of family and friends (though obviously, only with the informed consent of the person one is marrying), or any other thing not done to others, is something that one should decide for oneself, with more regard for one's own preferences than for the preferences of others.
