Would you consider suicide selfish?

DoozerT6

We are programmed by instinct not to endanger our own lives. Once we are above infancy and can recognise things that can harm us, the instinct is to run. Killing yourself is to go against every single instinct in every single fibre of our beings. Therefore, someone who takes their own life are clearly not in their right mind AT THAT MOMENT. Maybe it was a moment of madness, a moment that would pass if they hesitated or were interrupted, but at that moment, it seemed like the right thing to do. It's not logical to take your own life, so can we really blame someone who's mind had been altered by desperation, depression, a chemical imbalance or disorder, an addiction, appalling personal circumstances, overwhelming fear? I don't think so. It's an absolute tragedy for those left behind, and I think that anybody considering taking their own life is not in a fit state to think of the consequences of their actions. I remember when Robin Williams left us, David Letterman (who had known Robin personally for 30+ years) said, regretfully, at the end of the tribute segment on his show, "I had no idea he was suffering".

In the case of Alan Hawe - tbh I didn't follow the case closely because I heard enough to upset me, but did he suffer from some kind of personality disorder or delusions that made him think this was the right thing to do? Did he have a psychotic break? Or was he just an evil bastard??...

One eyed Jack

DoozerT6 wrote: »

In the case of Alan Hawe - tbh I didn't follow the case closely because I heard enough to upset me, but did he suffer from some kind of personality disorder or delusions that made him think this was the right thing to do? Did he have a psychotic break? Or was he just an evil bastard??...

A combination of all of the above -

Inquest: Alan Hawe 'was concerned at prospect of his marriage ending' - Clodagh's family


Exclusive: Alan Hawe 'was about to experience a fall from grace', Clodagh's family believes

donkeykong5

DoozerT6 wrote: »

We are programmed by instinct not to endanger our own lives. Once we are above infancy and can recognise things that can harm us, the instinct is to run. Killing yourself is to go against every single instinct in every single fibre of our beings. Therefore, someone who takes their own life are clearly not in their right mind AT THAT MOMENT. Maybe it was a moment of madness, a moment that would pass if they hesitated or were interrupted, but at that moment, it seemed like the right thing to do. It's not logical to take your own life, so can we really blame someone who's mind had been altered by desperation, depression, a chemical imbalance or disorder, an addiction, appalling personal circumstances, overwhelming fear? I don't think so. It's an absolute tragedy for those left behind, and I think that anybody considering taking their own life is not in a fit state to think of the consequences of their actions. I remember when Robin Williams left us, David Letterman (who had known Robin personally for 30+ years) said, regretfully, at the end of the tribute segment on his show, "I had no idea he was suffering".

In the case of Alan Hawe - tbh I didn't follow the case closely because I heard enough to upset me, but did he suffer from some kind of personality disorder or delusions that made him think this was the right thing to do? Did he have a psychotic break? Or was he just an evil bastard??...

The last line of your post sums him up perfectly in my eyes.

Widdershins

The ultimate act of control ?

That was one of the worst cases I've ever heard of.

It's also really sad that there was difficulty sourcing a recent photo of Clodagh. I think they used one with him in it, in the article I read..

airy fairy

Alan Hawe was just pure evil, perhaps with a bit of some kind of mental illness thrown in. He premeditated his wife's murder before his summer holidays.
I believe suicide is not premeditated, but the only way out of a tormented mental illness.
Unfortunately I've been thrown right in the middle of someone's mental torture, and it is that, a torture for the person's head. An indescribable torture, that, until you are living, breathing, watching and listening it, one can never understand. I still only understand 5% of that torture. And I can understand that suicide can be perceived by that person as the only way to stop it.
I'm not sure even the most qualified can understand?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with a lot of your posts Maryanne but I completely and utterly draw the line at harming your spouse and children. It’s your body and your life to do whatever you want with it . BUT you don’t have the same autonomy over the lives of anyone else, spouse or kids. THAT to my mind is inexcusable, unforgivable and is not someone acting out of depression. It’s more the act of a narcissist ,if they think killing their kids and wife is compassionate!

I actually had mercy killings in mind. Where a dearly loved, seriously ill and suffering elderly person has their life ended by their partner who then takes their own life.

I would never, ever agree with a parent, or anyone killing a child/children before taking their own life. That is, as you so rightly said inexcusable and unforgivable.

realitykeeper

I think we Irish would be better off if we were enthusiastic about work. I mean this not just as individuals but as a nation. Part of the problem may be that we are spoilt with excess. We need scarcity to challenge us.

MzMurfy

I wouldn't say its a selfish act. I'd imagine if you were depressed to a point where you contemplate to take your own life you are more than likely in a bubble of despair and other people don't factor in, it's such a tragic act but not selfish.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think we Irish would be better off if we were enthusiastic about work. I mean this not just as individuals but as a nation. Part of the problem may be that we are spoilt with excess. We need scarcity to challenge us.

This comment is worthy of a thread of its own.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This comment is worthy of a thread of its own.

In the context of the relationship between depression/ill mental health/mental illness and suicide, the lack of motivation and lack of purpose in life isn’t really a uniquely Irish experience. The effects have been observed and documented in many cultures around the world -

Previously, it was thought that depression primarily plagued people in developed "Western" nations and that non-Euro-American cultures did not suffer from this disorder. However, ethnomedical studies suggest that this perception may have more to do cultural perceptions of what symptoms become labeled as a depressive disorder, how occurrences of depression are recorded for statistical purposes, and how depression is thought of within particular cultures. For example, in India, a wide range of distress disorders are categorized as depressive disorders, whereas in Japan, the very idea of mental illness is unacceptable and few people will admit to having it. Obviously, without knowing the full story, someone might conclude that Indian people have very high rates of depression, or conversely, that Japanese people rarely develop this disorder. Even within the United States, prevalence rates (the numbers of people experiencing depression) can be influenced by cultural context. For example, black women have lower rates of depression than white women. In addition, recent immigrants to the U.S. tend to have lower rates of depression than their descendants, who are presumably more "Western" in attitudes and behavior.

Ethnomedical research suggests that cultural differences in focusing on oneself and one's place within the social hierarchy are linked to the prevalence of depression. Some of this difference comes from the individualistic vs. collectivistic orientation of a particular culture. In Western cultures, individuals are ideally viewed as independent, autonomous entities striving for individual achievement and success. In contrast, other cultures view the family or society as being of more importance than the individual. Many times, personal happiness is sacrificed for the stability of the group at large in such cultures. Very little thought is given to particular individuals within such cultures. For example, in traditional Asian cultures it is common for one member of the family to work hard and share a paycheck with the entire extended family. Some authors suggest that because people from collectivistic cultures are not encouraged to place much importance on personal gratification, they do not spend time feeling frustrated about their failure to achieve personal success. As a result, the lack of focus on the self can lead to a decrease or absence of the development of depressive disorders.

Sociology Of Depression - Effects Of Culture

BBFAN

A more relevant question might be do we have the right to demand people stay alive just because we want them too?

Take as an example a mother of three who's children are grown and have their own lives and families and who lives on her own and suffers from severe depression so much so that each day feels like a year of survival. They visit on special occasions like Christmas, Birthdays etc. and just expect her always to be there no matter how miserable her existence. It's handy for her to be there when they feel like a visit or need a babysitter etc.

That I would define as selfishness.

orourkeda1977

How is suicide a selfish act?

Can someone please explain that to me?

feargale

Succubus_ wrote: »

Nope, it isn't. Next question.

Do you consider censorship selfish?

One eyed Jack

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

How is suicide a selfish act?

Can someone please explain that to me?

It meets the definition -


Definition of selfish:


1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

poisonated

I’ve tried on a number of occasions. You just lose all hope.

mzungu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It meets the definition -


Definition of selfish:


1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

I disagree there OEJ. That definition would only fit in cases like Alan Hawe. Ie. a small minority.

But for the vast, vast majority of suicides there is nothing selfish. The definition of selfish given does not accurately describe the reality of the person that takes their own life.

One eyed Jack

mzungu wrote: »

I disagree there OEJ. That definition would only fit in cases like Alan Hawe. Ie. a small minority.

But for the vast, vast majority of suicides there is nothing selfish. The definition of selfish given does not accurately describe the reality of the person that takes their own life.

I’d kinda be on the fence about it’s utility if I’m being honest. I mean, I would see it as crude and insensitive to speak of suicide in terms of whether or not it’s selfish or unselfish. I’d see it as applying a persons moral values and standards where I’d be more or less of the opinion that they don’t apply - in contradiction of someone else’s morals and values.

I’ve known people who throughout their lives have learned through social osmosis I suppose, that suicide is an inherently and ultimately selfish act, and that’s the only reason as far as they’re concerned that taking their own life just isn’t an option, no matter what their circumstances. Essentially it’s the one thing they’re anchored to which I’m not going to pick them apart on and tear asunder when that’s all they have left is keeping them alive.

It’s selfish of me of course in those circumstances because I have an ulterior motive of ensuring that person will at some point regain the motivation to live of their own volition, so I’m not going to pull them up on it if they opine that suicide is a selfish act - it’s crude, and it’s insensitive, but in those circumstances, there are bigger considerations in play than my perspective, or me imposing my morals and values on someone else who isn’t me.

realitykeeper

Suicide may be the consequence of a narrow paradigm. If we lived in a society where wisdom was cherished, I think there would be fewer instances of suicide. Many modern day liberals think they are "enlightened." Sadly, their torch has a narrow beam. A person who uses logic to decide on such matters as life and death are vulnerable because their "logic" could be wrong. The stoic on the other hand is the sort of person who will pick up his cross and carry it.

DoozerT6

DoozerT6 wrote: »

We are programmed by instinct not to endanger our own lives. Once we are above infancy and can recognise things that can harm us, the instinct is to run. Killing yourself is to go against every single instinct in every single fibre of our beings. Therefore, someone who takes their own life are clearly not in their right mind AT THAT MOMENT.

It is worth noting that we go against our strongest instincts all the time - and when we do so it is not indicative that we are "not in our right mind". For example one of our strongest instincts is to procreate. But many people choose celibacy - turn down sexual encounters - use contraception and more.

Another of our strongest instincts is to feed. Yet people go on diets and all sorts - do fasting and more.

We undermine our instincts all the time - because we find reason to do so. That those reasons might not be our reasons does not mean the other person is out of their mind. They may be of course. But we can not merely assume that as a reflex.

DoozerT6 wrote: »

Maybe it was a moment of madness, a moment that would pass if they hesitated or were interrupted

Perhaps. In fact that is often an argument put forward in favor of Dignitas style facilities where one can go to choose to die for any reason. Rather than suicide "in the moment" therefore they have procedures to go through - professionals to meet and consult with - and a passage of time which might lead them to re-thinking their position.

Of course that dynamic will not benefit everyone - but certainly there are going to be some people who would find that during the process they lose the will to go through with it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It meets the definition -

Definition of selfish:

1 : concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2 : arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

It only meets the definition if you are willing to make some wild assumptions actually. For example the definition clearly says "without regard for others". Many people taking the path of suicide are doing it not because they themselves want to die - but because they genuinely have come to conclusions the other people in their life would be better off if they did.

So straight away many suicides do not meet the definition as you claim - but fail it at the first hurdle.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It only meets the definition if you are willing to make some wild assumptions actually. For example the definition clearly says "without regard for others". Many people taking the path of suicide are doing it not because they themselves want to die - but because they genuinely have come to conclusions the other people in their life would be better off if they did.

So straight away many suicides do not meet the definition as you claim - but fail it at the first hurdle.

And who are they to make that decision without so much as consulting the people on who’s behalf they are making those decisions, without even giving that person or people a choice in the matter or the opportunity to offer their opinion?

Any way you choose to word it, it comes down to the individual who chooses to take their own life on the basis of decisions that they have already made on everyone else’s behalf, and the outcome of those decisions is advantageous to the person who chooses to take their own life - essentially they have justified and rationalised their decision to themselves, regardless of the opinions of anyone else and whether anyone else would agree they actually would be better off if that person were to take their own life.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And who are they to make that decision without so much as consulting the people on who’s behalf they are making those decisions without even giving that person a choice in the matter or the opportunity to offer their opinion?

Who are they not to? It is their life and it is up to them to make their own decisions with it. We can not make their choices for them. That would make you more selfish than them in that context.

Quite often in our lives we come to decisions we believe to be the right ones - so we make them without consulting others. Especially if we think those others will try to talk us out of it.

I have done so myself. Decisions I knew were the right ones but others might not want me to make because they - even knowing it was the right decision to make - would still feel they had to talk me out of doing it.

But the definition you offered said clearly "without regard for others". What you are equivocating over now is that they did not show what _you personally_ consider the proper regard for others. But that is a different thing entirely. They might not have had the regard for others you want them to - but that does not mean they did not have _any_. So you are arguing an entirely different point now. Their not regarding others how _you_ want them to does not mean they did not have _any_. Which was the criteria required in your chosen definition.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Any way you choose to word it, it comes down to the individual who chooses to take their own life on the basis of decisions that they have already made on everyone else’s behalf

Exactly - which as I just explained is an entirely different thing to the definition you offered. so when you said "It fits the definition" you were simply wrong.

The definition fails on other points too - but that was the main one. For example the definition mentions "ones own advantage" and "pleasure" and "welfare". I think you will find it quite the struggle to fit being entirely dead into any of those three dynamics.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Who are they not to? It is their life and it is up to them to make their own decisions with it. We can not make their choices for them. That would make you more selfish than them in that context.

Quite often in our lives we come to decisions we believe to be the right ones - so we make them without consulting others. Especially if we think those others will try to talk us out of it.

I have done so myself. Decisions I knew were the right ones but others might not want me to make because they - even knowing it was the right decision to make - would still feel they had to talk me out of doing it.

But the definition you offered said clearly "without regard for others". What you are equivocating over now is that they did not show what _you personally_ consider the proper regard for others. But that is a different thing entirely. They might not have had the regard for others you want them to - but that does not mean they did not have _any_. So you are arguing an entirely different point now. Their not regarding others how _you_ want them to does not mean they did not have _any_. Which was the criteria required in your chosen definition.

It’s not a question of whether or not anyone entitled to do it without asking anyone else, of course they are. I’ve often thought when someone told me they wanted to pop their clogs and asked me how I felt about it, I gave them the thumbs up, no need to stick around on my account. They’re still around, we’re just not friends any more.

It’s not about what regard I personally would be satisfied with either or showing proper regard or any of the rest of it. As you can see from the above - if someone wants to go, and they tell me they want to go, I’ll be the last person to try and prevent them from doing so, especially if I’d be glad to see the back of them anyway. Often when asked by someone would I miss them, they’re surprised that the answer is no.

My point is simply that in the vast majority of suicides, the person who has chosen to take their own life will not have asked the people they claim they’re acting on behalf of, if they have the right to act on that person’s behalf - make a decision for that person, without giving that person the opportunity to make that decision for themselves. It’s not about how anyone they leave behind would feel, it’s entirely about how the person who chooses to take their own life, imagines an ideal outcome for those people, based upon decisions that they have made for them.

That’s essentially what is meant by regarding suicide as a selfish act, but as I mentioned already - far as I’m concerned I’m not going to pass judgement on anyone who chooses to take their own life, nor would I personally speak ill of the dead.

Exactly - which as I just explained is an entirely different thing to the definition you offered. so when you said "It fits the definition" you were simply wrong.

The definition fails on other points too - but that was the main one. For example the definition mentions "ones own advantage" and "pleasure" and "welfare". I think you will find it quite the struggle to fit being entirely dead into any of those three dynamics.

I personally wouldn’t struggle with it at all, frankly.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not about what regard I personally would be satisfied with either or showing proper regard or any of the rest of it.

But that is exactly what it is about. The definition you claimed suicide fits clearly says showing "no regard" for others. I gave an example of where many of them do it with regard for others. And your response was basically that this is not - in your subjective opinion - the proper regard for them. Because it involves them making that decision without consulting those others.

Which is why your chosen definition simply does not hold. Many of them do show regard for others when choosing suicide. Maybe not like you might want them to - but they still do it. And so the definition does not hold.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is simply that in the vast majority of suicides, the person who has chosen to take their own life will not have asked the people they claim they’re acting on behalf of

And my point is simply that that does not mean they made the choice with no regard for others - and that therefore this does not at all support the definition you claimed it fits. The definition does not hold - and it certainly does not hold because of what you describe here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I personally wouldn’t struggle with it at all, frankly.

Have at it then. Tell me how people get welfare and pleasure from dying or being dead.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But that is exactly what it is about. The definition you claimed suicide fits clearly says showing "no regard" for others. I gave an example of where many of them do it with regard for others. And your response was basically that this is not - in your subjective opinion - the proper regard for them. Because it involves them making that decision without consulting those others.

Which is why your chosen definition simply does not hold. Many of them do show regard for others when choosing suicide. Maybe not like you might want them to - but they still do it. And so the definition does not hold.

The definition holds, which is why not just in my subjective opinion, but in the subjective opinions of many people, people who choose to take their own lives are regarded as selfish, and the act of suicide itself as selfish - because it is the taking of ones own life by one’s own hand, entirely about the self.

Have at it then. Tell me how people get welfare and pleasure from dying or being dead.

Plenty of people imagine they’d be better off dead. I haven’t had the opportunity to inquire how that’s working out for them.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The definition holds, which is why not just in my subjective opinion

Again no it does not. The definition clearly states that they show "no regard" for others. And many people choosing suicide very much do consider others and have regard for others when they do it. For example when they genuinely believe those others would be better off if they were dead.

Your deflection then is to moan they did not consult those others. Fair enough - they did not and maybe they should have - but that in no way whatsoever means they showed no regard for those others. They still showed regard for them sometimes - and so the definition fails at the first hurdle.

So if the definition says they show "no regard" - and many people choosing suicide do - then the definition simply can not hold no matter how much you shout it does.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Plenty of people imagine they’d be better off dead. I haven’t had the opportunity to inquire how that’s working out for them.

So as expected you will have difficulty showing it despite saying you would have no difficulty showing it. And you have explained one of the excuses as to why that it.

"welfare" is quite a specific word. You do not have much welfare when you are dead. "Pleasure" is quite a specific word too. What pleasure do you think dead people have? Back to that faith based after life stuff you have zero evidence for I guess?

ye two should be blocked from each other for the good of the site imo

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again no it does not. The definition clearly states that they show "no regard" for others. And many people choosing suicide very much do consider others and have regard for others when they do it. For example when they genuinely believe those others would be better off if they were dead.

Your deflection then is to moan they did not consult those others. Fair enough - they did not and maybe they should have - but that in no way whatsoever means they showed no regard for those others. They still showed regard for them sometimes - and so the definition fails at the first hurdle.

So if the definition says they show "no regard" - and many people choosing suicide do - then the definition simply can not hold no matter how much you shout it does.

The definition holds. Whether you’re willing to accept that at this stage or not (and it looks like you’re not), is fine with me.

So as expected you will have difficulty showing it despite saying you would have no difficulty showing it. And you have explained one of the excuses as to why that it.

"welfare" is quite a specific word. You do not have much welfare when you are dead. "Pleasure" is quite a specific word too. What pleasure do you think dead people have? Back to that faith based after life stuff you have zero evidence for I guess?

You suggested I would find it quite the struggle to fit any of one’s own advantage, pleasure, and welfare into being dead. I replied that I personally wouldn’t, and I have known many people who felt the same way - that for them, they were better off dead, which is why I said I haven’t had the opportunity to ask them how that’s working out for them.

I don’t know why you say I’m going back to anything, it was through your own ignorance of Christianity that you tried to perpetuate nonsense about how people who take their own life are regarded in Christianity, but I was neither the person who brought religion into the discussion, nor have I been the person who kept it going, which is why I simply said “Ok” whenever you brought it up, as I couldn’t be arsed entertaining your nonsense, frankly.

I’ll do it again now and just say “Ok tax”.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The definition holds. Whether you’re willing to accept that at this stage or not (and it looks like you’re not), is fine with me.

The thing is I said it does not hold and explained why it doesn't. You are saying it does and - silence. Quite the difference there.

If someone considers others in their decision to die - such as thinking that those others would be better off if they were dead - then they have shown regard for others. Simple as. So the definition fails.

You can moan that they should have consulted those others - fair enough I might even agree with that - but that is in no way relevant whatsoever to supporting the definition. They _still_ showed regard for others - just not how _you_ might want them to have done so. So no - the definition does not hold. Suicide is not in and of itself selfish. A particular persons reasons for doing it might be however - while those of another not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You suggested I would find it quite the struggle to fit any of one’s own advantage, pleasure, and welfare into being dead. I replied that I personally wouldn’t, and I have known many people who felt the same way - that for them, they were better off dead, which is why I said I haven’t had the opportunity to ask them how that’s working out for them.

My point exactly. So you have no way to show they derive any pleasure whatsoever for any of it. They are dead. There is no reason to think they are experiencing anything at all. As for their welfare - well they are dead. Not much welfare to be derived from that either. You know - being dead and all.

So your definition fails all over the place. But mostly - as I said - on the regard issue. Many people make their choice to die based on their regard for others. Misguided regard perhaps! But regard none the less.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know why you say I’m going back to anything, it was through your own ignorance of Christianity that you tried to perpetuate nonsense about how people who take their own life are regarded in Christianity

No ignorance on my part there at all. Or if there is - you certainly did not move to show it was there as you simply ran off from the conversation. But the fact remains that there are teachings in many branches of many religions - Christianity included - which are harmful to people considering suicide and/or the people left behind after a suicide.

If you tell the mother of a child who killed themselves that suicide is a moral sin and the soil is condemned to hell - for example - then that is very harmful and hurtful nonsense to be teaching them.

One eyed Jack and taxAHcruel - Your egos and your need to prove each right and wrong WRECK this thread for everyone else - or do you actually care about that?

feargale

I favour legalising assisted suicide, at least where, on the face of it, somebody has a terminal illness, is in great pain, and can make a rational decision on the question. I got an anti-euthanasia message from a clerical friend some time ago, and I told him to feck off, it's my life, I will decide.
At the other end of the spectrum where a person has brought children into the world, and those children are still very young and materially and emotionally dependent on him or her, I think it extremely selfish of such a person to take the suicide route because of, say, emotional or money troubles.