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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-04-15 07:30 pm (UTC)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.