Rational Suicide
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2011, 07:35 AM
RE: Rational Suicide
(12-11-2011 06:29 AM)needlr Wrote:  ....
Impulse becomes dangerous here; it toys with "rationality" and thus may result in the suicide of somebody who should not have died.
....
Rational suicide is tricky, because in many cases it isn't rational, as there rarely a rational 3rd party to intervene and judge the worth of the act.

This is exactly why the state and church have no business intervening by force. Once the authoritarian obstacles were removed, it would be far easier to seek third-party - expert? - advice in situations where ending a life may be the best solution for all concerned - or perhaps there is an alternative the people involved had not considered.

In any case, the only person who has an absolute right to make such a decision is the protagonist. In no other decision, from whether to wear white socks with sandals, through majoring in ancient Chinese art, buying a house in Santa Barbara, whether to gamble or drink or dive into the lake on New Year's morning, nobody arrogates my right to exercise my own poor judgment. Why in this one? Even if it's the wrong decision, i have a right to be wrong. This is, in fact, the only decision i can't possibly regret.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
12-11-2011, 07:44 AM
RE: Rational Suicide
The individual has value. Money has no value. Ergo, there ain't nothing rational about it.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 03:23 PM
RE: Rational Suicide
(12-11-2011 07:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The individual has value. Money has no value. Ergo, there ain't nothing rational about it.

And what is the measure of an individual's value? Who decides? Is an individual automatically of value, inalienably valuable? Is that value of more worth than an individual's choice? Is a person's pain less valuable than an individual's value? Does a person's decisions under pain automatically make them irrational, and does irrationality make a person unable to make their own decisions?

(Gee, I don't think I've ever asked so many rhetorical questions before... Confused)

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 03:52 PM
RE: Rational Suicide
(13-11-2011 03:23 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  
(12-11-2011 07:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The individual has value. Money has no value. Ergo, there ain't nothing rational about it.

And what is the measure of an individual's value? Who decides? Is an individual automatically of value, inalienably valuable? Is that value of more worth than an individual's choice? Is a person's pain less valuable than an individual's value? Does a person's decisions under pain automatically make them irrational, and does irrationality make a person unable to make their own decisions?

(Gee, I don't think I've ever asked so many rhetorical questions before... Confused)
There's not rhetoric in your questions, there's assumption. I'm like a cat - I'm gonna die, I'm gonna crawl out back - neighbors will call the cops about the smell, ain't my problem. Wink

Nearly everybody else is not "individual" in that sense; they have family, friends, ethical standard in their morality. Girly's statement was an individual cost/benefit analysis; and Girly knows Girly better than any other individual, in that sense, he cannot be incorrect.

What I have found is that those who value me in life, value me; and no material artifact replaces me. If this body becomes a burden for those who care about me - toss it in the recycle bin - and get back to living. There is no Identity expressed by this body that is not love, it is not love to preserve this body against a non-extant future that love shall return to it.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 04:15 PM
 
RE: Rational Suicide
(13-11-2011 03:52 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  What I have found is that those who value me in life, value me; and no material artifact replaces me.

I meant to ask GirlyMan about it.

If they had a choice between you, alive and well in their life, or a big sack of gold without you among the living, which would they value more?

That is also a rhetorical question, because I am sure they would choose you, GirlyMan.

defacto was right about questioning the source of value and Peterkin was quite right about the decision belonging to the individual as the final arbiter.

Actually, we did have a thread about Euthanasia and it would be quite relevant in this thread. I will see if I can dig up a link.

Here its is: Euthanasia, anyone?
Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Zatamon's post
13-11-2011, 05:08 PM
RE: Rational Suicide
(13-11-2011 03:52 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(13-11-2011 03:23 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  
(12-11-2011 07:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The individual has value. Money has no value. Ergo, there ain't nothing rational about it.

And what is the measure of an individual's value? Who decides? Is an individual automatically of value, inalienably valuable? Is that value
There's not rhetoric in your questions, there's assumption.

If a rhetorical question is one that a person does not want anyone to answer, then yes it may be an assumption. If a rhetorical question is one that could either be answered or not, then it may or may not be a assumption. In other words, it may or may not be an assumption either way. Big Grin

In this case, I just asked a bunch of questions because I didn't want to be embarrassed by trying to answer them. Blush

Quote:What I have found is that those who value me in life, value me; and no material artifact replaces me. If this body becomes a burden for those who care about me - toss it in the recycle bin - and get back to living. There is no Identity expressed by this body that is not love, it is not love to preserve this body against a non-extant future that love shall return to it.

So is it, or is it not love to give your life for your loved ones financial welfare if that is your greatest usefulness to them?

oops, another question.....

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes defacto7's post
13-11-2011, 05:24 PM
RE: Rational Suicide
(12-11-2011 07:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The individual has value. Money has no value. Ergo, there ain't nothing rational about it.

To whom? Lots of people have made rational choices to sacrifice other people's lives for profit: drug dealers and arms manufacturers and airline executives do it daily. Mercenaries and miners, steeplejacks and safari guides, risk their lives for pay. I don't consider this a reasonable trade, but those involved seem to and i'm in no position to correct them.
There are also many individuals of no value to me.
And there are probably quite a few individuals who do not consider themselves valuable.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 06:29 PM
RE: Rational Suicide
(13-11-2011 05:08 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  So is it, or is it not love to give your life for your loved ones financial welfare if that is your greatest usefulness to them?

oops, another question.....

My life? In 2008 I made lass that ten grand, whereas Gwyneth Paltrow made over 35 mil. Yet if she came to my door for my material wealth, I could not fall on my sword fast enough. I "know" that I love the person "Gwyneth Paltrow" and not the image. But perhaps that's too much "crazy..."

If you want 0% crazy and 100% science - there is no extant future. Assumption is all we have. I cannot speculate outside the mind of Johnny Cantor. In another thread it was generally agreed that Justice is a graphic-novel superhero - and yet your words ask for justification of a situation in which my being was no longer extant, only my legacy.

This is my legacy. Sharing what I have learned, what I have considered; I've never had "loved ones" in that regard. What have I learned? That there's no economic theory that works on paper, when considering globalization. And that to "take" something for myself is to set my legacy above that of humanity's. It is not sin that this has occurred in the past; it is merely "what I know" that questions if such will be sin in the future.

The best we can do for our loved ones, as individuals, is love them; to teach them that the only conditional of love is I, so that if there should come a day when this "I" no longer remains, nothing is lost.

(13-11-2011 05:24 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  To whom? Lots of people have made rational choices to sacrifice other people's lives for profit: drug dealers and arms manufacturers and airline executives do it daily. Mercenaries and miners, steeplejacks and safari guides, risk their lives for pay. I don't consider this a reasonable trade, but those involved seem to and i'm in no position to correct them.
There are also many individuals of no value to me.
And there are probably quite a few individuals who do not consider themselves valuable.

It's a morality issue. Zero-state requires that I be valuable to humanity, humanity is not required to value me.

And yeah, my calculations may seem "a little chilly." I am a mathematician, after all. Wink

When it comes to morality, the individual must determine value.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2011, 06:48 PM
RE: Rational Suicide
There you go again!
The individual must determine....?
Who is this Individual?
For me, it is I. Society may have many claims on me throughout life, and i may have many debts to many other persons. But my death is mine own.

If you pray to anything, you're prey to anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2011, 07:18 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2011 08:34 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Rational Suicide
(12-11-2011 07:35 AM)Peterkin Wrote:  In any case, the only person who has an absolute right to make such a decision is the protagonist. In no other decision, from whether to wear white socks with sandals, through majoring in ancient Chinese art, buying a house in Santa Barbara, whether to gamble or drink or dive into the lake on New Year's morning, nobody arrogates my right to exercise my own poor judgment. Why in this one? Even if it's the wrong decision, i have a right to be wrong. This is, in fact, the only decision i can't possibly regret.

I completely concur that offing myself may be the only truly inalienable right an individual has (I can't actually come up with another). And it doesn't really matter whether it's a rational decision or not. It's my call, period. But what I'm interested in here is rational reasons, or at least rationalizations.

(12-11-2011 07:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  The individual has value. Money has no value. Ergo, there ain't nothing rational about it.

When you're living off the land the cost of living is measured in sweat, when you're not it's measured in currency.

(13-11-2011 04:15 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  If they had a choice between you, alive and well in their life, or a big sack of gold without you among the living, which would they value more? That is also a rhetorical question, because I am sure they would choose you, GirlyMan.

I'm sure they would, even if their's was a completely irrational decision.

I've seen 2 examples of rational suicide in my life, but first I want to rule out euthanasia. With euthanasia everyone (including the person asking for it) agrees that the suffering is serving no point, the patient will not survive. In that case, it's not a question of rationality, it's a question of morality. And I've seen that too. A friend dying of advanced liver cancer with weeks to go, suffering beyond imagination, only thing I could say "If you need my help in getting out of here Brother, just let me know and I will do whatever I can." That's the only appropriate response as far as I'm concerned, but that's not what I'm interested in here. (He elected not to off himself, thereby prolonging not only his own suffering, but also that of his friends and family, but I respect his call.) I'm more interested here in the case where it's not that crystal clear.

I've seen 2 examples of rational suicide which I will relate in the first person to, well make them more personal.

Scenario #1:
I've had a completely debilitating stroke. I wake up in a hospice capable of only a few seconds of violent, uncontrolled spasms. They can keep me alive for many years in this pathetic state at a cost of $10K a month, all of which comes out of my estate until it is exhausted. My family wants to keep me alive for as long as possible because they love me. I no longer have the capacity to either off myself or tell them that the entire estate's gonna go towards something I don't want at all. My only recourse is to go into my uncontrolled violent spasm everytime they try to feed me. The medical staff eventually gets the point and stop trying to feed me and I die of starvation.

Scenario #2:
I've been diagnosed with cancer and am also a diabetic. The cancer Doc says I've got 6 months to live. My wife is a brilliant pastry chef which because of my diabetes I've never been able to enjoy. I say fuck it, if I'm gonna die anyways I'm gonna go out death by pastry. Drop my diabetes diet completely and indulge in delicious pastry. 9 months later, no sign of the cancer but the diabetes is so advanced that it kills me shortly later.

(13-11-2011 05:08 PM)defacto7 Wrote:  So is it, or is it not love to give your life for your loved ones financial welfare if that is your greatest usefulness to them?

And if it is, how would one start to go about determining the point of maximal benefit?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: