marko_the_rat and i found this... Gotta post it...

[ristin]

As ordered, stolen from tygercowboy
From lonerpack's journal

Suicide: The Permanent Solution To A Temporary Problem
Ask the 25-year-old who tried to electrocute himself. He lived. But both his arms are gone.

What about jumping? Ask John. He used to be intelligent, with an engaging sense of humor. That was before he leapt from a building. Now, he's brain-damaged and will always need care. He staggers and has seizures. He lives in a fog. But, worst of all, he KNOWS he used to be normal.

What about pills? Ask the 12-year-old with extensive liver damage from an overdose. Have you ever seen anyone die of liver damage? You turn yellow. It's a hard way to go.

What about a gun? Ask the 24-year-old who shot himself in the head. Now he drags one leg, has a useless arm and has no vision or hearing on one side. He lived through his "foolproof" suicide. You might too.

But... Who will clean your blood off the carpet or scrape your brains from the ceiling? Commercial cleaning companies may refuse that job--but SOMEONE has to do it.

Who will have to cut you down from where you hung yourself or identify your bloated body after you've drowned? Your father? Your mother? Your wife? Your son?

The carefully worded "loving" suicide note is of no help. Those who loved you will NEVER completely recover. They'll feel regret and an unending pain.

Suicide is contagious. Look around your family. Look closely at the 4 year old playing with his cars on the rug. Kill yourself tonight, and he may do it ten years from now.

You DO have other choices. There are people who can help you through this crisis. Call a hotline. Call a friend. Call your minister or priest. Call a doctor or hospital. Call the police. They will tell you that there's hope. Maybe you'll find it in the mail tomorrow. Or in a phone call this weekend. But what you're seeking could be just a minute, a month, or a day away.

You say you don't want to be stopped? Still want to do it? -Well, then, I may see you in the psychiatric ward later. And we'll work with whatever you have left.

Remember: Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

IF YOU'RE READING THIS, PLEASE STEAL IT AND PUT IT IN YOUR JOURNAL, TOO.

Comments

[darth-phylos.livejournal.com]

IF YOU'RE READING THIS, PLEASE STEAL IT AND PUT IT IN YOUR JOURNAL, TOO.

No.

[archadia.livejournal.com]

thanks for posting it some of us need reminders that other people will have to clean up the mess we were too feeble to attempt

[parakleta.livejournal.com]

It's also a permanent solution to a permanent problem... life.

The rationale there is much the same as the doctor in Canberra telling me I shouldn't be a motorcyclist because I'm going to end up being a quadriplegic. If the decision is made consciously and in a rational state of mind then other people should accept it as theirs to make. That said, if the person is irrational, then they should be supported until they are rational.

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

Well, there is such thing as a rational choice that has consequences, or a rational choice that is selfish. Suicide is an inherintely selfish act, barring unusual circumstances. Assuming you have any friends or family at all, you are causing undue pain and suffering to yourself to relieve your own. In the case of using a motorcycle, it is entirely different. When you ride a motorcycle, youre intent isn't to end up as a quadriplegic, your intent is to transport yourself from place to place either for pleasure, or because you want to save money on gas or something. There are other rational desires in this scenario beyond ending up as a parapalegic, and the quadriplegic result is hardly guaranteed. It is arguably somewhat unconscionable to use a motrobike, but that can at least be weighed against positive benefits. In the case of suicide, the benefits are negligable to non-existent, except in rare instances. A person should perhaps have a right to suicide, but that doesn't make it an ethical choice simply because it is done in a rational state of mind.

[parakleta.livejournal.com]

In this context, riding a motorcycle is the same... you don't set out with the intent to end up as an invalid when you try to kill yourself, just as you don't set out with the intent to end up as a paraplegic when you ride a motorcycle.

The argument that suicide is selfish is in itself an incredibly selfish argument. Anyone who puts their attachment and hurt from the suicide act before thinking about the person who actually committed suicide is so unbelievably selfish. I am always shocked and confused when I see this argument put forward. The person committing suicide isn't causing the pain and suffering to others, it is their attachment and lack of understanding that causes the pain and suffering, and it certainly isn't fair to load the person committing suicide with the guilt of their friend's and family's weaknesses.

[insomnius.livejournal.com]

amen to that. That is all I have to say.

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

I was looking at suicide from the sense of self, i.e. my stance on my own suicide. Ethics are generally framed in that framework. If you were to extend your argument logicall, you can reasonablly argue that my execution of another for personal gain shouldn't be barred by law because it is selfish of that individual to desire for his or her own existence. We, as human beings, are socially interconnected individuals, and the entire basis of our generally accepted legal and ethical systems are predicated upon how to balance personal freedom with social obligation. No action is without consequence upon others, and it is reductive to ignore that by placing one persons desires as a value above all others.

In the case of suicide, of course the families desire to see their son or daughter or whoever alive is selfish at some level. But so to is my desire to maintain my own life and to keep my property and to drive my car. This doesn't give someone else the right to violate any of those things without pretext.

The suffering endured by a person who contemplates suicide is something that is not a given. Emotional pain, particularly depression, is as often rooted in a kind of fucked up narcissism as it is anything else, I should know having almost killed myself and having had a great deal of family members and friends who have attempted or succeeded at suicide.

To suggest that it is the "weakness" of friends and family to care about that a family member commits suicide is just plain callous. If love is a weakness, what the hell is suicide? They are responsible for their pain, yes, but they weren't the ones actively multiplying the greif through a deliberate act. An inability to deal with ones pain and choosing to commit an act that is, by all accounts innately painful to those who care about you seems a much greater weakness to me. I wanted to shoot myself because I was to weak to deal with my pain at the time, not because of some bullshit enlightened attitude. Amazingly enough I learned to deal with my pain while avoiding causing undue emotional harm to my friends and to my family (which they would have suffered out of positive feelings for me, because they had invested in me as a person).

Now, in some situations, suicide can be a reasonable thing. If a person is dying on a bed and is in incredible pain, or is on life support, or some similarly degrading situation, suicide seems reasonable to me because the suffering is otherwise unavoidable. Emotional pain, however, is the domain of the individual, and ultimately, we all control our emotional states to one extent or another. A depressed person can ultimately get better, via force of will, change of environment, medication, or some other means. If you don't believe this, then it would follow you don't believe in free will, in which case it hardly makes sense to blame a family for feeling something which they have no control over.

To simplify the argument a bit, it is reactively selfish to not want someone to commit suicide, in the same way that it is reactively selfish for someone to be upset when another person cheats on you in a relationship. It is selfish to ask for the partner to not be able to sleep with whom they wish. However, it is actively selfish on the part of the suicidee who kills his or herself, as well as it is actively selfish of the cheater to cheat on his or her significant other. The selfishness on the part of the family and the significant other is part of a mutually agreeable social contract in which both parties benefit. It is the suicide victim and the cheater who chose to violate the inherint terms of said contract and who violate the ethical structure upon which relationships are formed. Individual circumstances can complicate these situations, to be sure, and of course make may for specific exceptions, but as a general rule, the difference I outlines is one vital for any kind of system of relations to function at even the most basic level. To disregard that is to say you not wanting me to stab you in the face with an icepick is somehow equivalent to me commiting said act, which is patently absurd.

[parakleta.livejournal.com]

Probably the first thing we should clear up. I never said that suicide wasn't selfish. It is, but they don't carry the weight of everyone else's selfishness as well. There is a huge difference between what I am saying and what you are hearing.

If you were to extend your argument logicall, you can reasonablly argue that my execution of another for personal gain shouldn't be barred by law because it is selfish of that individual to desire for his or her own existence.

You are imposing your desire on someone else, which is a big difference. Someone who commits suicide doesn't impose anything on anyone.

Emotional pain, particularly depression, is as often rooted in a kind of fucked up narcissism as it is anything else

I beg your pardon, but who the fuck are you to judge others..?

To suggest that it is the "weakness" of friends and family to care about that a family member commits suicide is just plain callous

I didn't say their love was a weakness, I said their attachment was. If you truly love someone, then you love them for exactly who they are, which means accepting their decisions as their own to make, and being unconditionally happy for them when they make them. People that hurt are exactly those people that have "invested" in you, as you put it, because their investment means they have something to lose. People that truly give to others haven't "invested" anything, and don't stand to lose anything, so their agenda doesn't come into it.

Now, in some situations, suicide can be a reasonable thing.

Excuse me again, but who the fuck are you to judge others..? Suicide is reasonable whenever the person committing it believes that it is.

A depressed person can ultimately get better, via force of will, change of environment, medication, or some other means.

And if their only recourse is medication which has terrible side effects, does this mean they should live through hell so that they don't hurt their friend's feelings..?

It is selfish to ask for the partner to not be able to sleep with whom they wish.

It is indeed, in exactly the same way. Cheating is something different though, because it involves the breaking of a trust given, and usually deception and dishonesty, but most often comes about because someone is being forced by another's selfishness into a path of action that is hurtful to them. Your analogy here gains you nothing, because I'm polyamorous.

For all the belief in an afterlife, why aren't more people overjoyed that their friends who commit suicide have moved onto their next existence..?

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

You are imposing your desire on someone else, which is a big difference. Someone who commits suicide doesn't impose anything on anyone.

They are imposing the burden of grief upon others by avoiding it themselves. It is an innate human reaction to be saddened by the death of a family member to which you had any level of attachment, barring an extremely unusual or hostile relationship, or some kind of difficult to obtain buddhist detachment from the material world that few of us possess.

I beg your pardon, but who the fuck are you to judge others..?
I am in a position to judge from my own experiences and what I have read, and my own personal experience, as well as discussions I have had with many others who have gone through the same thing indicates to me a psychology of narcissistic self indulgence. This is to some extent annecdotal, but from what I have read based on psychological profiles, this seems fairly consistent with my experience. There are suicides that fall under the "relieving the burden" category, where a person kills themself because they feel they are a financial/emotional burden upon another as well, but that is why I qualified my statement as "usually." My judgment is as much a judgment of self as anything else, because I was narcissitically self indulgent when I pondered suicide with a gun in my mouth. In retrospect, I feel I have a pretty good grasp of why I did that. Many people I have talked to have felt similarly. Given how I have seen suicides ruin the lives of others, including young people who are hardly at a point in their lives to live in this magical state of emotional altruism you proscribe, I am notably judgmental of the act unless there are some kind of extenuating circumstances that make the act just.

I didn't say their love was a weakness, I said their attachment was. If you truly love someone, then you love them for exactly who they are, which means accepting their decisions as their own to make, and being unconditionally happy for them when they make them. People that hurt are exactly those people that have "invested" in you, as you put it, because their investment means they have something to lose. People that truly give to others haven't "invested" anything, and don't stand to lose anything, so their agenda doesn't come into it.

While I believe such love exists, I think few of us practice it, and that it hardly works as a basis for social norms. What you speak of takes an incredible amount of discipline and will to achieve. I consider it an ethical responsibility for a person to take such things into account. Thus, in the case of a potential suicide, I hold them ethically responsible for considering the impact it will have on those who love them. The "norm" is for people who love to feel attached (I do not say norm as a value judgment, but simply as representative of the population). Attachment is a weakness from certain perspectives, but detachment is not an unambigously positive trait. Zen meditation allowed many a great saumrai to kill with complete detachment while later writing about the beauty of a Cresanthemum.

Excuse me again, but who the fuck are you to judge others..? Suicide is reasonable whenever the person committing it believes that it is.

That is a bizarre standard for ethical behavior if you ask me. An act is not inherintely reasonable because a person believes it to be so. Reason is a quality apart from the whims of any person, including you, me, or a potential suicide. A person can be reasonable if they apply their faculties in that pursuit, but they are not reasonable just because they believe they are. Similarly, suicide is not unreasonable just because I think it is unreasonable. Rather, I beleive it to be unreasonable because, to the best of my mental faculties, I have reasoned and thus concluded it to be so. I may yet be wrong, and am open to that possibilty were I provided with a more rational argument to the contrary.

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

Camus presents a compelling argument from the perspective of an existentialist in the Myth of Sysiphus as to why suicide is an existential dilemna, but he goes on to refute the idea. Most people think they are reasonable, but unless you are a dialtheist, it must be recognized that if they were all correct, the world would be a paradoxical place. As far as who I am to judge others, well, Im not particularly judging anyone in this case. I am judging the ethical reasoning behind suicide, which is an entirely different thing all together.

And if their only recourse is medication which has terrible side effects, does this mean they should live through hell so that they don't hurt their friend's feelings..?

It depends upon the extent of their hell. Within reason, I would say the strong and ethical person would endure. I don't do right because it feels good. God knows I constantly eat shit beacuse I place acting ethically as a high personal priority. Doing the right thing is not always compatible with having a good time. Ideally, the two are mutually agreeable, but I have no reason to believe they are innately so.

It is indeed, in exactly the same way. Cheating is something different though, because it involves the breaking of a trust given, and usually deception and dishonesty, but most often comes about because someone is being forced by another's selfishness into a path of action that is hurtful to them. Your analogy here gains you nothing, because I'm polyamorous.

I have no problem with polyamory, as long as all partners engaged in the act are aware of and accepting of the benefits and consequences that are entailed with such arrangments. That is entirely the perrogative of those involved. Polyamory is not the same as cheating however, as you seem to recognize. Whether or not that argument has any impact upon you in an emotional sense isn't really my intent. I am interested in laying a groundwork of solid reasoning, not in rhetorical persuasion. Whether or not you are convinced is only of minor concern to me. I am more interested in arguing the point to see the strengths and weaknesses of my own opinion on the matter in the hopes of achieving a better ethical understanding of suicide.

The one point I am willing to concede to you is that, in the case of a potential suicide, if they were to discuss the idea with all those likely to be impacted, and all were accepting of the idea, I think suicide at that point is an ethically acceptable course of action, if still perhaps a bit of an escapist solution. For example, I have long believed that doctor assisted suicide should be acceptable in the cases of suffering patients who have no chance of getting better. I could see this being extended to any situation in which the potential suicide had the agreement of all who were to be impacted by their death. I do however think the suicide is ethically obligated to consider the impact their death will have on those around them.

For all the belief in an afterlife, why aren't more people overjoyed that their friends who commit suicide have moved onto their next existence..?

I am in no position to answer that, being an agnostic, except to say that most people who are anti-suicide for religious reasons believe suicide is a sin against nature and god (since it is a metaphysically defiant act against god and gods creation), and thus will send the person to hell, which means they aren't going to a better place. This isn't just limited to the Judeo-christian tradition either. Plenty of indigenous African religions, as well as plenty of Asian religions have some kind of designated place in some kind of hell for suicides, because it is socially recognized as a negative act for one reason or another, be it reneging on filial duties, or flipping god the bird. Me, I don't know, and don't claim to have any ability to know. For all I know, suicides are given the highest honor in the afterlife. Or just as likely there is no afterlife at all. That doesn't particlarly concern me, since it isnt something I can tangibly reason about at the moment given the information available to me.

[parakleta.livejournal.com]

The one point I am willing to concede to you is that, in the case of a potential suicide, if they were to discuss the idea with all those likely to be impacted, and all were accepting of the idea, I think suicide at that point is an ethically acceptable course of action, if still perhaps a bit of an escapist solution.

When society learns not to condemn those they don't understand, and friends and family gain the maturity to not burden others with guilt for their own shortcomings, then maybe this situation will occur more often. It's what I'd like to see come about, honesty and openness.

The problem is that what you are advocating, that the person committing suicide be held responsible for the grief of others, will ensure that this never comes about, because as soon as they try to discuss it with anyone, the others that are attached to them are likely to do everything in their power to prevent it, rather than discussing it rationally and supporting the person in whatever decision they make.

You seem entirely too eager to judge and condemn those people who commit suicide, try looking beyond social rulings, and look instead with objective compassion. If someone decides that they have no interest in living any longer, why should it matter? What does it matter? Exactly what harm does it do?

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

I once sat and watched my brother OD on meds because I thought I should respect his wish to kill himself. One of my friends found out and immediately got my parents up and told them what was going on. He then got his stomach pumped, and he is now one of the happiest people I know, and he gives a whole lot to the world. His stance at the time may have had the appearance of objectivity, but given our inability to see the future, the temporary cause of most of our depressive issues is hard to see past.

I do not believe that a person who chooses to commit suicide is doing so with clear thought devoid of emotional influence, the ideal you seem to think is the responsibility of the family memebers. Like I said, ideally, we could all detach ourselves and be objective, but it is exactly because we cant that the person commits suicide (except buddhist monks who light themselves on fire in protest, or similar political acts, which would be more properly classed as martyrdomns). I think you hold a double standard wanting the relations to be objective, but failing to ask that of the suicide. A person free of emotions may see their death as a betterment to the world, but not because of suffering. If they were objective, they wouldnt feel suffering, just as the objective parent wouldnt feel attachment. Thus, the suicide loses the motivation to commit the act. So, assuming you hold people to the same standard, you should expect the suicide to be objective, in which case they would likely lack the emotional motivation to kill themselves.

I myself dont expect emotional clarity of someone wanting to commit suicide, just as I dont expect that of a family who has to deal with a suicide. Rather, I expect some thinking about the issue, and consideration which need not be removed from emotion. Hopefully, people will make efforts to alter their emotional state. If they can't, they can't. For one reason or another, they weren't able to overcome the emotional state and were overcome with pain or self loathing or some other state that leads them to suicide. But I dont see that as the logical or desirable outcome, because I recognize we are emotional beings, and that denying that is basically naive and idealistic.

Making a permanent decision that is irreversable in that manner is rational to me only under the circumstances in which it can be illustrated to me that the person will continue to endure unavoidable pain in one fashion or another. Why do I consider it irrational? Because the real consequences of the action are unknowable at the time, and since suicide is irreversible, that is a pretty crass action to take. Much the same reason I consider the death penalty to be a pretty idiotic part of criminal law. Whoever does the administering of said killing, the full consequences of the act, as well as the ultimate validity of the choice is never truly knowable, and it makes the fatalistic assumption that reform is impossible, and that people can't change.

I dont particularly judge or condemn people who commit suicide in general, because I don't know the specific circumstances of every suicide in existence. I judge and condemn the reasoning behind the act. There is a distinct difference. I try not to confuse ideas with people. They aren't the same thing, and I think about the two in entirely different ways. As a general rule, I find the reasoning behind avoidant ethics piss poor, because they are inherintely reductive. They redce the ethical sphere to the individual, and disregard anything beyond that as relevant to decision making.

I believe the compassionate person tries to help the suicide through their pain, rather than distantly accepting it as if nothing positive can be done. I believe there is always hope for change, for reform, and for improvement, even if that hope isnt often realized. To accept suicide is to me to deny the possibilty or relevance of change, and as such, is to render the relevence of reasoning moot, since the world is set in stone. Thought becomes a decoration, not a thing of content. Ethics is just a word drifting through the air, departed from meaning or soul. Ultimately, the world is deprived of meaning, and discussing anything is ultimately moot.

[parakleta.livejournal.com]

So the end justifies the means? If someone endures hardship for years of their life, and then ends up being happy in the end, that justifies the hardship..? sounds a lot like gambling to me, and I don't see the point in it. If your brother hadn't had his stomach pumped, and had died, what bad would have come of it.

I believe the compassionate person tries to help the suicide through their pain

That's all well and good, so long as they don't try and impose their own agenda on to them, or manipulate them with guilt etc.

I think you hold a double standard wanting the relations to be objective, but failing to ask that of the suicide.

It's not a double standard, because when dealing with your own life you can't be anything but subjective, but when dealing with other people's lives, you should strive to be as objective as possible, to respect them and their identity, and to know that you can't understand what it is exactly that they're feeling.

You are continually advocating that people have the right to put their views on others, and when others don't live up to their beliefs and their standards, they have the right to enforce these, but only in the situation where it coincides with what you believe. You believe that suicide is wrong, so you see no fault in people doing whatever is in their power to prevent others from committing suicide. This about falls in line with missionaries destroying native cultures because they are 'saving' the natives, burning witches because they're in league with the devil, and will damn people to hell. You are imposing your standards on other people with a tyrannical rule, and believing you're right because the majority agrees with you.

[ristin.livejournal.com]

.....um, wow.

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

At what point did I say anything about imposing anything? I never at any point claimed that people should be forced into anything. I have debated the ethics of suicide. At no point have I suggested there should be regulations of any kind. You really dont seem to be understanding my argument in the least.

You are continually advocating that people have the right to put their views on others

That is rather interesting. I never did any such thing. What I advocate is ethical behavior. I never advocated enforcing ethical behavior. You seem to be conflating my arguments with an entirely different branch of imposed ethics that I have never at any point even so much as suggested. A person has a right to do with their boy whatever they will. That doesn't make their actions with their own body ethical. I am not arguing law. I am arguing social ethics. The fact that you have attempted to misconstrue my argument into something so far from anything I said suggests you aren't really interested in rational dialogue, but rather you are attempting to associate me with a stereotype to which I do not belong. I don't know how exactly you came to the conclusion that I was imposing any standards, because it takes a grave misreading of what I have writen to reach such a conclusion. At no point did I say suicides should be jailed, detained, or in any way physically or mentally coerced. I suggested they should be shown compassion and love in an attempt to help them escape the darkness of their situation. I suggested suicide is unethical. I did not suggest at any point anyone should be coerced. I suggest you go back and reread what I have written, as at some point you seem to have misinterpreted me.

So the end justifies the means? If someone endures hardship for years of their life, and then ends up being happy in the end, that justifies the hardship..?

In the context of an individuals spiritual development, I would say yes, assuming achieving said development doesnt involve causing pain to others. Hardship is a part of what challenges us and ultimately helps us develop as human beings. Unless you are an extreme materialist, it is pretty hard to believe that a life devoid of suffering is a life with meaning.

It's not a double standard, because when dealing with your own life you can't be anything but subjective, but when dealing with other people's lives, you should strive to be as objective as possible, to respect them and their identity, and to know that you can't understand what it is exactly that they're feeling

You should strive to be objective in both situations, but it is inherintely difficult to be anything but subjective in either circumstance. I don't know how you come to thte conclusion that a person who is subjective in relation to themselves is capable of objectivity in relation to others. That is essentially paradoxical. If you really want, I can get into the reasons, but I think a cursory examination of the concept should provide all the answers necessary.

You are imposing your standards on other people with a tyrannical rule, and believing you're right because the majority agrees with you.

I am imposing my standards? How am I imposing standards anymore than you? We are debating the ethics of suicide. Neither of us at any point suggested forcing people or coercing people to reach our point of view. You are attempting to slander my argument with vitriolic attacks that have no basis in my argument. I think you should really think about what that means, the fact that you are essentially conflating an idea in order to attack my character rather than my argument. I would bet a large sum of money that you have no real idea as to my actual political or ethical leanings at large (assuming, as is probably reasonable, that you havent read my LJ to any great extent), because you are clearly associating my ideas with an entirely different world view that have no relation to my lines of reasoning.

[parakleta.livejournal.com]

I never advocated enforcing ethical behavior

Laws are irrelevant, for the most part they represent and are metered based on what is considered ethical or unethical by society. The fact that you are claiming that suicide is unethical, by implication, means that you have no problem with it being enforced. If you did have a problem, you would have spoken out against your brothers wishes being physically violated when his stomach was pumped. The very fact that you mentioned that as a good thing implies that you think physical intervention is acceptable. Others views, which coincide with yours, were forced upon your brother, and you implied that this was acceptable.

I'm not in any way trying to attack you, merely the argument, but I'm getting the impression that you fail to understand the significance of casting judgement on what is ethical and what is unethical. You may not be looking beyond the simple labels of ethical and unethical, but from there it is quite easy to slip into right and wrong, good and evil. From that it is quite easy to follow the idea that if a man permits a wrongdoing to occur with his knowledge, then it is as bad as if he committed the wrongdoing himself. This then leads into it being not only acceptable, but expected that a man will do what is in his power to prevent unethical behaviour from occuring. You may think this is taking it too far, but I can think of no occasion (although there probably are some) where it is considered a bad thing to stop someone from doing something unethical, but I can think of many where it is considered a bad thing to not stop it.

At no point did I say suicides should be... ...mentally coerced

What do you think labelling someone's actions as unethical, and loading them with the guilt of the anguish of those left behind is, if not mental coercion and emotional blackmail..?

How am I imposing standards anymore than you?

Because I am advocating liberty, you are advocating judgement, coercion, blackmail and intervention.

you are clearly associating my ideas with an entirely different world view that have no relation to my lines of reasoning.

If that is the case, then I apologise. I've only argued against what has been presented. You believe that suicide in unethical (i.e. failing to comply with social standards of behaviour), except in extreme situations. You believe the person committing suicide should be held responsible for the pain and suffering of those left behind. You believe that the physical intervention to stop your brother committing suicide was an acceptable course of action.

I think the difference is that you are standing on what I see as a dangerous precipice, and you haven't realised it yet. The words ethical and unethical carry tremendous power, and can have phenomenal ramifications, which I'm not sure if you fully grasp. The classifications generated by words such as moral/immoral, ethical/unethical, holy/heretical and healthy/ill, among others, are some of the most powerful forces for shaping what can and what cannot be done in society, what can be forced upon people, and enforced by society, whether it be by things as violent as physical intervention, or as insidious as socialisation.

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

Ok look. I think there is a clear distinction between what I think is ethical and what I think should be enforced. I think, for example, that lying is unethical. I do not think there should be laws against lying, except in special instances like a court case, where there is a persons life at stake based on a judgment, and truth is vitally important. Me thinking lying is unethical is simply not the same thing as me coercing people into telling the truth. It is me having the opinion that they should tell the truth. Do you not see the distinction there? You are telling me that me having ethical standards different from yours is, in essence, always coercive. By extentsion, you must reason therefore that any ethics of any kind are coercive.

You believe that the physical intervention to stop your brother committing suicide was an acceptable course of action.

No, I didnt say that. You assumed that. On the contrary, I was, and to this day do am unsupportive of what was done to my brother. I am happy that he is alive. I am not happy about the way in which he was made to be alive. I am upset that physical coercion rather than my personal love and the love of others was what kept him alive.

You believe the person committing suicide should be held responsible for the pain and suffering of those left behind.

I believe they should hold themselves responsible. Wether they do that is entirely their choice. I dont suggest this should be done through guilt tripping, or any other means, particularly with a person considering suicide. In all likelyhood, doing such thing would have the inverse of the intended effect. I think the person should be shown love and compassion, in the hopes that they will choose, of their own volition to live, because they perhaps will realize what there is to live for

The words ethical and unethical carry tremendous power, and can have phenomenal ramifications, which I'm not sure if you fully grasp.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy that has no religious conotation. Moral is a religious word. Healthy/ill is a trickier linguistic problem because it frequently that was is currently the standard is healthy, and particularly in the past, this could be based on poor scientific reasoning. I think what is dangerous is to say "that person is ill because they are different." What isn't dangerous to me is to say "I think that person is ill. Here is the line of reasoning as to why I believe this person to be mentally ill."

Coercion means to restrain or dominate by elliminating individual will, or to enforce or bring about by force or threat. I never suggested any of those should be done. If me holding an opinion about ethics based on a line of reasoning is coercion, then holding an opinion of any kind is coercion. I think what you are afraid of is people enforcing ethics. If I were arguing for the enforcment of any of the ethics I argued, then I could completely understand you being upset and your argument against that would be basically valid in that context. However, that really was never my point, and I don't think the two should be conflated. I never did anything other than state my opinion on the matter, which never including physically or mentally forcing anyone to do anything. I do think the choice has ethical implications. You may not believe suicide is unethical, but you must certainly beleive there is such a thing as unethical behavior. I have no problem with you beliveing anything is unethical, though I may find the reasoning to be problematic in one case or another. If you started enforcing your ethics, and I found the enforcment was merely to advance an ethical outlook that was based more clearly on some religious reasoning or something, then I would have a problem with that. I dont have a problem with you thinking about the world differently than me, and you forming your ethical system on a different basis than me. If your ethical reasoning lead you to shoot an innocent person for some reason (which I know it would'nt), that would be a point of issue. Does this distinction between holding an ethical position and enforcing ethics make sense?

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

The classifications generated by words such as moral/immoral, ethical/unethical, holy/heretical and healthy/ill, among others, are some of the most powerful forces for shaping what can and what cannot be done in society

Of course. I hardly see that as problematic in any sense, as long as these classifications are made on reasonable grounds. Whether or not others base things upon reasonable grounds is not my responsibility, and is not something I can control. People misconstrue everything under the sun. My ethics are an ethics of personal discourse about how I can live my life ethically, and I think that the reasoning is fairly solid. Wether or not others decide to live along similar lines is their choice. I will try to convince people to engage in what I consider ethical behavior through conversation and discussion, not through any other means. If that is coercive, than language is coercive because it defines the world, thus limiting what is and isn't by creating artificial dualisms. I think language is limited in its descriptive powers, and language can be coercive and can be controlling, but you and I discussing this issue one on one cannot be classified as such in my opinion. If I bought all the meadia groups and prevented them from broadcasting anything other than my opinion, or even advocated such a thing, then my acts would be potentially coercive in a broader social sense, by virtue of me suppressing the voices of others.

what can be forced upon people, and enforced by society, whether it be by things as violent as physical intervention, or as insidious as socialisation.

The step from what is ethical and what should be enforced is a tricky one. This is the problem of having to compromise different ideals to create a livable society. One ideal may be unlimited freedom, but eventually you will run into someone else, in which case their desire for freedom must be balanced against yours. Society creates a need for social standards and laws to regulate any kind of interpersonal discourse. Laws are by their nature a compromise. But they are a necessary one to make society function. We just have to strive to find the best compromises that impact what we consider our natural rights in the most minor fashion possible. In an ideal world, we wouldnt need laws or enforcment because everyone would have a similar standard of ethics and would act upon them in a consistent fashion. But, we live in a world were a great deal of the population hardly even considers the word ethics itself, let alone developing rational philosophies. As such, people do things that dont make for a workable society, and that just arent ethical. People steal, people kill, people rape. People likely always will, assuming we dont genetically alter human nature. At the simplest level, any act which imposes ones will over another persons will without just cause should be regulated in my opinion. Any act which is a matter of an individuals choice should not be regulated under any circumstances as a general rule, even if it is unethical, in my opinion. However, I do not believe that this makes suicide personally ethical. I just dont think anything should be done by society at large or by the government in particular to regulate suicide in any fashion.

[parakleta.livejournal.com]

I think at this point we'll have to agree to disagree. I still believe your use of the word ethical is inappropriate, as you have clarified it to say it's your personal belief, and you don't believe it should be enforced, but ethical behaviour is that which is "conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior". It's naive to think that something can be an "accepted standard of social behaviour" without it being enforced, since standards of social behaviour are exactly what are used to create laws. You might want to think of instead using a less powerful word such as simply saying you believe it's "wrong".

[archdukechocula.livejournal.com]

Well, I was using the term ethics as referring to duty or obligation, essentially meaning what is right or wrong behavior. It is ethical not to lie. It is, however, not considered something that should be legally regulated, because of a persons right to free speech essentially, unless the act causes undue harm to innocents (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theater). It is, in essence, an argument about a personal code of conduct that a rational being would follow. The definition you use is specifically in regards to legal and business ethics, which is a different matter alltogether. It may seem like semantics, but the distiction has relevance, particularly in discussions like ours.

Regardless, it is clear to me that the majority of our argument is based on a difference of understanding in regards to a specific term. Given your understanding of the term ethics, your response to my argument makes a great deal more sense to me. I still believe it is unethical(or undutiful if you prefer) for a person to commit suicide, and do not believe the most ethical (dutiful) behavior for a loved one is to support their inclination. I think both our reasons for our opinions have been pretty well outlined at this point, and further discussion is probably just rehashing our arguments, so I will leave it at that.

[archadia.livejournal.com]

Well... thanks for posting it anyway. Some of us needed to see it, regardless...

[subrosa-florens.livejournal.com]

So how many people reading this are or have been suicidal? I have been twice in my life, when i was a child, then when I was in my twenties. For the last few years I have been on the verge of it again. Sometimes more than on the verge. Some of the people reading this know exactly what I am talking about.

This little list poses no obstacle to the suicidal thoughts I have had, when I have had them. Not the slightest. All it does is remind me that I will have to do more research into self-immolation, so I use enough gasoline. No, I am not joking, that is exactly what this makes me think. Nothing more.

[darth-phylos.livejournal.com]

I thought my initial reply indicated my stance.

[cosinesky.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with the 'lack of obstacle' comment. The list seems to suggest nothing to the truly suicidal, save for 'don't mess up or you'll just keep suffering, and maybe not even be able to try again because your arms will be gone.'

Having dealt with recurrent suicidal tendencies for over six years, I *can* say what has slowly brought me out of the, shall we say, habit - and yes, it is a matter of personal ethics, but deal.

The fact is that I have already lived a few decades, consuming, benefiting from the efforts of others - I finally had to confront myself with the fact that I'm pretty lucky in some ways. I have debts I can never, ever repay, I have benefited from things I can never replenish - but if I stop now, I don't have even a hope of making it worthwhile. If I go down without a fight, it is just shameful, to me. That realisation shocked me out of the 'narcissism of suicide,' if you will.