Suicide

[SMS]

My class had a good debate on the morality of suicide. I am categorically for the freedom to commit suicide and those against me usually resorted to some sort of theological argument. I asked them a question that they seemed to have a difficult time answering, and so I thought I'd try my luck at the war room. Here it is:

How can one consistently reconcile the belief that suicide is morally wrong with the valorization of soldiers who kill themselves to save their fellow soldier. For instance, consider a soldier who jumps on a gernade to save the life of his buddy.


It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?

[SMS]

Also,
We seem to have no reservations in using the label 'suicide bomber' for the Islamic fighters who strap bombs on themselves to destory targets, but we seem to have a reluctance to label the soldiers who jump on gernades as suicide actors. Why?

[perfessor]

It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?
I guess hamburger is filet mignon, because they are both beef.

In my experience, the term "suicide" is applied to those cases where the victim needlessly chooses to end his life. I personally would not apply the term to the soldier; you can if you like. But to somehow assert that a linguistic stretch grants moral equivalency to the different situations, seems absurd to me.

[SMS]

It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?
I guess hamburger is filet mignon, because they are both beef.

In my experience, the term "suicide" is applied to those cases where the victim needlessly chooses to end his life. I personally would not apply the term to the soldier; you can if you like. But to somehow assert that a linguistic stretch grants moral equivalency to the different situations, seems absurd to me.

Some replied to me that the difference rests in that the soldier "gives" their life but the other person "takes" their life. I think this distinction, as it stands, depends on the emotive imports of 'giving' and 'taking'. Insofar as we construe suicide as knowingly killing yourself, then we'd have to include the act of the soldier. Thus, under this notion, it would be inconsistent to include the act of the soldier as suicide and not immoral.

However, I suppose that we could construe suicide as 'taking' rather than 'giving' your life. However, this would implicate that the noun 'suicide bomber' or 'suicide mission' is a misnomer.

[perfessor]

"I just want the protein, not a semantic argument!" - Martin Blank

In general, a soldier has, whether through enlistment or conscription, given up a large part of his freedom to act as an individual. The suicide bombers may well be acting under orders, and I think the term is loaded, if you'll pardon the expression. "Homicide bomber" seems more appropriate, but lacks the cachet and will never catch on.

Suicide, the act, has always been viewed with revulsion and repugnance, which is why we apply it to the enemy (in combat), but not to our own.

So, what's your point? Did you want to chit-chat about the definition, or what?

[His Noodly Appendage]

It's a terrible argument, imho.

However, I agree completely with our conclusion. Our bodies, our minds and our lives are our own, to do with as we please.

[Goldie]

It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?
I guess hamburger is filet mignon, because they are both beef.

In my experience, the term "suicide" is applied to those cases where the victim needlessly chooses to end his life. I personally would not apply the term to the soldier; you can if you like. But to somehow assert that a linguistic stretch grants moral equivalency to the different situations, seems absurd to me. I agree about the soldier...however, in MY experience "suicide" IS not just applied to people who needlessly choose to end their life. People who are in chronic pain who choose to end their lives are called "suicides." People who choose not to drag out a fatal illness are called "suicide."
I agree with the OP that the right to die should be our right.

[The 800# Gorilla]

It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?
I guess hamburger is filet mignon, because they are both beef.

In my experience, the term "suicide" is applied to those cases where the victim needlessly chooses to end his life. I personally would not apply the term to the soldier; you can if you like. But to somehow assert that a linguistic stretch grants moral equivalency to the different situations, seems absurd to me. I agree about the soldier...however, in MY experience "suicide" IS not just applied to people who needlessly choose to end their life. People who are in chronic pain who choose to end their lives are called "suicides." People who choose not to drag out a fatal illness are called "suicide."
I agree with the OP that the right to die should be our right.^^^^^^What she said!!!!!^^^^^^^

[SMS]

In general, a soldier has, whether through enlistment or conscription, given up a large part of his freedom to act as an individual.


A nitpick: how does a soldier "give up" his freedom under involuntary military service?


The suicide bombers may well be acting under orders, and I think the term is loaded, if you'll pardon the expression. "Homicide bomber" seems more appropriate, but lacks the cachet and will never catch on.


I'm not sure why you call it a homicide bomber.


Suicide, the act, has always been viewed with revulsion and repugnance, which is why we apply it to the enemy (in combat), but not to our own.


In other words, it is an inconsistency.

Did you want to chit-chat about the definition,


Sure.

[SMS]

It's a terrible argument, imho.
.

Tell me why.

[perfessor]

In general, a soldier has, whether through enlistment or conscription, given up a large part of his freedom to act as an individual.


A nitpick: how does a soldier "give up" his freedom under involuntary military service?

Indeed, a very small nit. He used to have it. Now he doesn't. That's the only significant point in my statement.

I'm not sure why you call it a homicide bomber.
Because that is the intent of the action. And I don't call it that; I only said it seemed a more accurate term. No one I know of uses it.

Suicide, the act, has always been viewed with revulsion and repugnance, which is why we apply it to the enemy (in combat), but not to our own.

In other words, it is an inconsistency.
Yes, so many shades of gray, so few words.

The word "suicide" has emotional impact - one reason, I believe, that there has been a strange resistance to allowing the terminally ill to choose the time and manner of their passing.

[Rathpig]

But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?

Perhaps you are unaware of one of the most famous and accurate George Patton (immortalized by George C. Scott in Patton)

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."


You don't fight a war to die. Dying is incidental.

[RexT]

While I agree that in some rare cases suicide is morally justified, I do not agree that a soldier sacrificing his own life to save others is morally equivelant to suicide.

Consider the difference in killing and murder. Both ends the life of a person. But society distinguishes between killing (say, in self-defense) and murder, which implies malice.

Likewise, suicide and sacrifice both end the life of a person, but there is a moral distinction.

[SMS]

While I agree that in some rare cases suicide is morally justified, I do not agree that a soldier sacrificing his own life to save others is morally equivelant to suicide.

Consider the difference in killing and murder. Both ends the life of a person. But society distinguishes between killing (say, in self-defense) and murder, which implies malice.

Likewise, suicide and sacrifice both end the life of a person, but there is a moral distinction.

What's the distinction?

[Esocyn]

It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?
I guess hamburger is filet mignon, because they are both beef.

In my experience, the term "suicide" is applied to those cases where the victim needlessly chooses to end his life. I personally would not apply the term to the soldier; you can if you like. But to somehow assert that a linguistic stretch grants moral equivalency to the different situations, seems absurd to me.

Suicide doesn't always imply "needlessly" choosing to end their own life. There are a variety of reasons for people to end their lives, some relatively "bad", though some are understandable. On the surface of the situation, I wouldn't imagine why someone who has access to wealth, power, so on and so forth, or someone who basically has it "good" in life would end their life, but I can understand why if someone was diagnosed with a terminal disease why they would choose suicide in an effort to fore go the pain, stress and eventual humiliation of dying from a crippling disease.

Though, even then, I can sympathize with those who have it "good" but also may want to end their lives. I'm prone to a great deal of suicide ideation when the smallest things go wrong or when I get sick and start to freak out over what I may (and usually don't) have. Of course, these reasons may be "needlessly" taking your own life and people should seek help for it because it's generally irrational. Nonetheless, I can sympathize.

[RexT]

While I agree that in some rare cases suicide is morally justified, I do not agree that a soldier sacrificing his own life to save others is morally equivelant to suicide.

Consider the difference in killing and murder. Both ends the life of a person. But society distinguishes between killing (say, in self-defense) and murder, which implies malice.

Likewise, suicide and sacrifice both end the life of a person, but there is a moral distinction.

What's the distinction?What? You can't distinguish between an act of self-sacrifice and an act of selfishness?

Can you also not distinguish between killing in self-defense and murder?

[Esocyn]

While I agree that in some rare cases suicide is morally justified, I do not agree that a soldier sacrificing his own life to save others is morally equivelant to suicide.

Consider the difference in killing and murder. Both ends the life of a person. But society distinguishes between killing (say, in self-defense) and murder, which implies malice.

Likewise, suicide and sacrifice both end the life of a person, but there is a moral distinction.

What's the distinction?What? You can't distinguish between an act of self-sacrifice and an act of selfishness?

Can you also not distinguish between killing in self-defense and murder?

It's also selfish to force someone to keep on living even though they don't want to. Why is your emotional wellbeing more important than theirs?

[RexT]

What's the distinction?What? You can't distinguish between an act of self-sacrifice and an act of selfishness?

Can you also not distinguish between killing in self-defense and murder?

It's also selfish to force someone to keep on living even though they don't want to. Why is your emotional wellbeing more important than theirs?I agree to a point. I also think we all have some obligation to society, community and family. I'm not opposed to suicide in rare cases.

[ioinc]

How can one consistently reconcile the belief that suicide is morally wrong with the valorization of soldiers who kill themselves to save their fellow soldier. For instance, consider a soldier who jumps on a gernade to save the life of his buddy.


It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?

The difference IMO is the mental state of the person vs. the soldier, and their associated ability to make a rational decision.

Another difference is also the evaluation of what is gained be each act.
Shooting myself in the head gains very little for anyone.... makes a mess at best and makes a mess of my sons mind at worst.

Jumping on a grenade to save a platoon full of soldiers has obvious benefits.

Perhaps it would be better to describe the acts of the soldier as 'sacrificial' rather than 'suicidal'

[ioinc]

Also,
We seem to have no reservations in using the label 'suicide bomber' for the Islamic fighters who strap bombs on themselves to destory targets, but we seem to have a reluctance to label the soldiers who jump on gernades as suicide actors. Why?

The intent of the people doing these things.

One is malicious one is altruistic

[ioinc]

It's a terrible argument, imho.

However, I agree completely with our conclusion. Our bodies, our minds and our lives are our own, to do with as we please.

I agree in principle

What if you are not in the right state of mind to make those decisions?

[SMS]

While I agree that in some rare cases suicide is morally justified, I do not agree that a soldier sacrificing his own life to save others is morally equivelant to suicide.

Consider the difference in killing and murder. Both ends the life of a person. But society distinguishes between killing (say, in self-defense) and murder, which implies malice.

Likewise, suicide and sacrifice both end the life of a person, but there is a moral distinction.

What's the distinction?What? You can't distinguish between an act of self-sacrifice and an act of selfishness?

Can you also not distinguish between killing in self-defense and murder?


You are assuming it is an act of selfishness. Yet, even if it were, suicide is not defined as something selfish.

[SMS]

Also,
We seem to have no reservations in using the label 'suicide bomber' for the Islamic fighters who strap bombs on themselves to destory targets, but we seem to have a reluctance to label the soldiers who jump on gernades as suicide actors. Why?

The intent of the people doing these things.

One is malicious one is altruistic

One of the first suicide bombers was a kid from Iran who blew up an Iraqi tank. Is this a malicious act?

[Lisa0315]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

Lisa

[JamesBannon]

But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?

Perhaps you are unaware of one of the most famous and accurate George Patton (immortalized by George C. Scott in Patton)

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."


You don't fight a war to die. Dying is incidental.
QFT. A dead soldier is damn all use to his surviving comrades.

[dug_down_deep]

One post was move to the TCR Random Junk thread for including only a suggestion that the poster of the OP was a troll. Please include discussion on the OP or the prevailing theme in every post. Also, I will suggest to those of you who have ears that discussing the content of the thread is far more interesting than discussing the content of any given poster's soul.

[RexT]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

LisaExactly, you only get one.

As another person who has struggled with severe depression my whole life, I completely agree with you. And as someone who at age 18 lost a father to suicide, I can say that the weight placed on those left behind is incalculable. Although in my fathers case, I don't believe it was an act of selfishness. His debilitating, degenerative and untreatable mental condition left him only one way out.

[Ray Moscow]

I like Steinbeck's adage on suicide from Cannery Row, which is roughly that everyone has a right to end his own life, but a friend can sometimes make it unnecessary.

I can imagine instances where it is either cowardly or heroic, but most of the time this is probably beside the point. Sometimes a person just sees no other option.

[Lisa0315]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

LisaExactly, you only get one.

As another person who has struggled with severe depression my whole life, I completely agree with you. And as someone who at age 18 lost a father to suicide, I can say that the weight placed on those left behind is incalculable. Although in my fathers case, I don't believe it was an act of selfishness. His debilitating, degenerative and untreatable mental condition left him only one way out.

Selfishness is probably too strong a word. I agree. I am so sorry for your loss. I guess when I thought "selfish", it is because of the time I found my husband in the closet with a gun in his mouth. I told him it would be the most selfish act of his life and to at least let me and the kids get out of the house before he did it.

There are those who are mentally ill, and there are those who use suicide as a weapon of emotional blackmail. Those who use suicide like that, I wish I could kill them myself.

My one attempt, I was not in control of my mind and didn't know what I was doing. I have this deep dark thing inside of me that I have fought my whole life. I took a stupid ambien (actually I think it was the other brand) and all of my inhibitions were removed as I was sleep walking. I took bottles and bottles of pills because I thought it was all a dream. I had no idea what I was really doing. I had imagined it a thousand times but I would never ever actually do it, or so I thought.

Lisa

[Ray Moscow]

I suppose that when a person is mentally ill, we cannot expect him/her to see things or act completely rationally: the world as they see it is insane, and they can't see the way out.

That's why doctors and properly administered medicines can help so many people: to get the old noggin working halfway right, so that people can see and make better choices.

[Lisa0315]

I suppose that when a person is mentally ill, we cannot expect him/her to see things or act completely rationally: the world as they see it is insane, and they can't see the way out.

That's why doctors and properly administered medicines can help so many people: to get the old noggin working halfway right, so that people can see and make better choices.

Correct. It is an illness. It is generally a chemical inbalance. It is no different than a diabetic taking meds to adjust their chemicals. To say that everyone should have the right to commit suicide is like saying that a stage 1 cancer patient has the right to not seek treatment.

Okay, yeah, I suppose they have that right, but at the same time, what a waste. They have everything to live for. They just need to fight and get medical treatment to help them fight. There is life to live and that life is precious.

Lisa

[Vorpal]

All this boils down to shades of meaning. It is unfortunate
that the English language doesn't have different words for
different kinds of suicide.

In the case of the soldier jumping on a grenade to save
his unit.. the word "sacrifice" is a better word than suicide.

Suicide is a good word for some 13 year old kid who swallows
3 bottles of tylenol because her boyfriend dumped her.

As far as the cancer patient that doesn't want to spent the last
several months in sheer agony, I really wish they had a better
word for that.

There needs to be a difference between immature or mentally-ill
suicide and suicide to avoid large amounts of suffering when the
end is soon anyways.

[RexT]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

LisaExactly, you only get one.

As another person who has struggled with severe depression my whole life, I completely agree with you. And as someone who at age 18 lost a father to suicide, I can say that the weight placed on those left behind is incalculable. Although in my fathers case, I don't believe it was an act of selfishness. His debilitating, degenerative and untreatable mental condition left him only one way out.

Selfishness is probably too strong a word. I agree. I am so sorry for your loss. I guess when I thought "selfish", it is because of the time I found my husband in the closet with a gun in his mouth. I told him it would be the most selfish act of his life and to at least let me and the kids get out of the house before he did it.

There are those who are mentally ill, and there are those who use suicide as a weapon of emotional blackmail. Those who use suicide like that, I wish I could kill them myself.

My one attempt, I was not in control of my mind and didn't know what I was doing. I have this deep dark thing inside of me that I have fought my whole life. I took a stupid ambien (actually I think it was the other brand) and all of my inhibitions were removed as I was sleep walking. I took bottles and bottles of pills because I thought it was all a dream. I had no idea what I was really doing. I had imagined it a thousand times but I would never ever actually do it, or so I thought.

LisaThank you Lisa. And I'm sorry to hear of your pain as well.

I don't think selfishness is necessarily too strong a word in every case. You named one of them, I think.

I though about suicide many times too. I sometimes think I might be fortunate to know what it is like for those left behind, since that is certainly a strong motivation for me to keep living. I think about dying to end my own selfish pain, but knowing how much more pain that would cause my family, I'm pretty committed to living through whatever I have to.

And I keep telling myself that it will all be over too soon anyway, so what's the rush. Why not stay around and try to make the most of it; that's what I do and I have lived a very interesting life. I've never attempted suicide and I hope I never do.

[Esocyn]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

Lisa

Oooo... the pissing match.

Well, as someone has has been clinically depressed my entire life (though, admittedly, is only 20 some odd years), been on several medications that didn't work, and have made a few attempts...

...I think it's a lot more nuanced than that "ultimate act of selfishness" crap.

[Lisa0315]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

Lisa

Oooo... the pissing match.

Well, as someone has has been clinically depressed my entire life (though, admittedly, is only 20 some odd years), been on several medications that didn't work, and have made a few attempts...

...I think it's a lot more nuanced than that "ultimate act of selfishness" crap.

I apologize for that. If you will read further, you will see that I retracted that statement and clarified why I originally said it.

I am also clinically depressed, and have been for as long as I can remember.

Lisa

[Esocyn]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

Lisa

Oooo... the pissing match.

Well, as someone has has been clinically depressed my entire life (though, admittedly, is only 20 some odd years), been on several medications that didn't work, and have made a few attempts...

...I think it's a lot more nuanced than that "ultimate act of selfishness" crap.

I apologize for that. If you will read further, you will see that I retracted that statement and clarified why I originally said it.

I am also clinically depressed, and have been for as long as I can remember.

Lisa

Yeah, I read that after the fact. Sorry bout that.

[Goldie]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

LisaExactly, you only get one.

My one attempt, I was not in control of my mind and didn't know what I was doing. I have this deep dark thing inside of me that I have fought my whole life. I took a stupid ambien (actually I think it was the other brand) and all of my inhibitions were removed as I was sleep walking. I took bottles and bottles of pills because I thought it was all a dream. I had no idea what I was really doing. I had imagined it a thousand times but I would never ever actually do it, or so I thought.

Lisa
That is not suicide...but an accident. Seriously.
I fight for the right to die...and the right to euthanasia because of my family and personal experience.

[Lisa0315]

Oooo... the pissing match.

Well, as someone has has been clinically depressed my entire life (though, admittedly, is only 20 some odd years), been on several medications that didn't work, and have made a few attempts...

...I think it's a lot more nuanced than that "ultimate act of selfishness" crap.

I apologize for that. If you will read further, you will see that I retracted that statement and clarified why I originally said it.

I am also clinically depressed, and have been for as long as I can remember.

Lisa

Yeah, I read that after the fact. Sorry bout that.

Understandable. I think there are some circumstances when it is selfish, and others when it is not. Whatever the case, those that are left behind pretty much never recover.

Lisa

[Quizalufagus]

I think labelling any suicide as selfish is pretty silly. Surely if there is any aspect of one's life in which one is sovereign it is in deciding whether or not to live. IMO it is inappropriate to question any sane person's decision in this matter--the sole right to make the decision to die is the most elementary of human rights.

[trendkill]

I think labelling any suicide as selfish is pretty silly. Surely if there is any aspect of one's life in which one is sovereign it is in deciding whether or not to live. IMO it is inappropriate to question any sane person's decision in this matter--the sole right to make the decision to die is the most elementary of human rights.
Just thought that bore repeating. I mean, if you think other people have a right to your life and it's selfish to take that away, by all means, don't kill yourself. There's precious little rational justification for suicide in any case (e.g. suicide does not relieve suffering, since there is no way to feel relief when one is dead). Just don't pretend for a moment that your view is somehow universal or supported by anything but personal judgment/preference.

[Lisa0315]

Well, hold on now...everyone here is making judgment calls on the issue.

As in all ethical dilemmas, there are two sides. Either we only have responsibility for ourselves, or we have responsibility to consider the impact of our actions on others. That is the standard for any ethical question.

So, the definition of selfishness is to put your own needs ahead of others, then, suicide, by definition is a selfish act. Unless, you have zero responsibility to anyone on the entire planet. I think it would be a rare individual who could say that they do not have some responsibility to some other human being on this planet.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I think it follows then, that we must divide those that can help themselves from those who cannot help themselves. While, by definition, some suicide is selfish from the perspective of ethics, some may be less selfish than others as some may be less capable of rational judgments on the value of their life and the impact it will have on others.

At the same time, if a soldier is "suicidal", then, it can still ethically be the right decision if he has weighed the value of his life against the lives of the ones he saves. The problem is that one cannot see into the future and one cannot know if the value of one life may be greater than the value of another.

I also think that we cannot use quantity as the ethical measuring stick either. If one man dies and saves a village, that sounds heroic, but if that village is made up of escaped convicted murderers, then, perhaps, it would have been better for the one man to live and the village to be wiped out.

Lisa

[RexT]

I think labelling any suicide as selfish is pretty silly. Surely if there is any aspect of one's life in which one is sovereign it is in deciding whether or not to live. IMO it is inappropriate to question any sane person's decision in this matter--the sole right to make the decision to die is the most elementary of human rights.And who decides the sane from the insane?

We all know society decides these matters, and decides morality, and euthanasia, murder and so on.

I agree with Lisa; it is a rare individual (if ever) who holds no responsibility to society. So the statement, as you express it, is by its very nature selfish, seeming to exclude any connection with society. We cannot be autonomous as individuals in the same instance we are members of a society.

I would personally like to see more societies become more open on this issue however.

[SMS]

Aristotle seemed to be against suicide because of obligation to the state, too. However, there is a danger here of reducing an individual to an instrumental utility. We'd be using them as a means to some end.

[Goldie]

okay...why does a responsibility to others outweight the responsibility to end one's own pain? Isn't, then, the dependent the one who is being "selfish" by not allowing the person to end their suffering?

[RexT]

okay...why does a responsibility to others outweight the responsibility to end one's own pain? Isn't, then, the dependent the one who is being "selfish" by not allowing the person to end their suffering?Well, each situation should be considered on it's own merits. So there should be some situations where the needs of the one outweighs the needs of the many, and vise versa.

[Lisa0315]

I agree. It is a case by case basis. In my opinion, though, life is always the best option.

Lisa

[Goldie]

There are also those cases where to live on...you would only cause others to suffer emotionally...financially...
Wow!
I cannot see that as selfish.
Yes...individually judged...but judged by whom? and...how can anyone possibly have all of the facts? They might think they do...but do they really???

[Lisa0315]

There are also those cases where to live on...you would only cause others to suffer emotionally...financially...
Wow!
I cannot see that as selfish.
Yes...individually judged...but judged by whom? and...how can anyone possibly have all of the facts? They might think they do...but do they really???

That is why it is a dilemma instead of an obvious choice. It is also why I will err on the side of life.

Lisa

[Goldie]

I believe in living life as long as you can... because that's it!
I also believe in my responsibility to others.
But, I firmly believe in the "right to die."
It is their life...and no one can make that decision for them. You can postpone it...and maybe they will change their minds...but, it has been my experience that if someone REALLY wants to die (and are not a vegetable) they will find a way.
Indeed some people attempt suicide for attention...a cry for help... and unfortunately some end up succeeding....
But, if I really want to die... no one should be allowed to stop me. IMO

[Esocyn]

I agree. It is a case by case basis. In my opinion, though, life is always the best option.

Lisa

That's the problem, though. There are cases where life is not the best option; suffering from terminal diseases, for one.

[Quizalufagus]

As in all ethical dilemmas, there are two sides. Either we only have responsibility for ourselves, or we have responsibility to consider the impact of our actions on others. That is the standard for any ethical question.

I think you're constructing something of a false dichotomy here. Surely we can agree that we are responsible for the impact of our actions on others and that there are limits to our obligations to others.

So, the definition of selfishness is to put your own needs ahead of others, then, suicide, by definition is a selfish act. Unless, you have zero responsibility to anyone on the entire planet. I think it would be a rare individual who could say that they do not have some responsibility to some other human being on this planet.

But selfishness is not merely putting one's own needs ahead the needs of others. If it were, then anyone who made any decicion to benefit him or herself would be acting selfishly. No--selfishness is not putting one's needs before those of others, it is doing so without consideration of the needs of others.

And who decides the sane from the insane?

We all know society decides these matters, and decides morality, and euthanasia, murder and so on.

Well, I've pointed out before that I don't believe that there really is such a thing as sanity, so of course I agree. I've also said many times that I don't believe in any deontological ethical systems.

However, my point was that the human rights on which we all generally agree imply the right to kill onself, though I can imagine cases when that right could be temporarily suspended for one's own benefit (e.g., when you're trying to kill yourself because you're strung out on mind altering substances).

I agree with Lisa; it is a rare individual (if ever) who holds no responsibility to society. So the statement, as you express it, is by its very nature selfish, seeming to exclude any connection with society. We cannot be autonomous as individuals in the same instance we are members of a society.

The issue isn't whether all individuals have some responsibilities, it's what the nature of those responsibilities are. We are generally agreed, for example, that one has the right to end a romantic relationship no matter how one's partner feels. One is considered (within our society, of course) basically sovereign when it comes to such matters.

[cape_royds]

But selfishness is not merely putting one's own needs ahead the needs of others.

But that's exactly what selfishness means--giving oneself the priority, making oneself the focus of one's actions or thoughts.

If it were, then anyone who made any decision to benefit him or herself would be acting selfishly.

Indeed! Most of us are selfish quite often, and often with good reason.

Selfishness, however, doesn't necessarily mean a desire to take from others, or harm others. I think we can distinguish between selfishness and, say, greed or malice.

That gets me to thinking of cases of greedy or malicious suicides.

There can be a rather malicious suicide, e.g. leaving a note to one's children laying on a guilt trip, in the expectation of causing suffering above and beyond that of the upset of one's suicide itself.

Suicide can also be about vengeance or spite, of course: I'm fucked, but I'm taking you down with me! Domestic murder-suicides, or "going postal," as examples.

That shades into suicide-for-glory, an aggrandizing suicide: Look at me taking down the high-and-mighty! Their lives, their power, their destinies, have all been rendered subject to my will, through my last conscious act. May no one think of them again, but to remember what I have done to them! Power and Will exercised over the collective memory. 9/11 is the classic recent case.

Perishing, naturally, puts the killer in these cases beyond reach of any worldly reproach or revenge. Even execrating the memory of the deed, memorializes the deed, while to deny such memories means denying whole portions of the forgetter's identity, i.e. that which was formed of the memory of the slain. While if the aggrieved proceed to take vengeance in their turn, then the abused have become the next abusers, they forfeit their virtue, and make martyrs of fresh innocents.

That takes me to the matter of deliberate martyrdom, which is also a power-seeking suicide, but with as it were a higher difficulty rating: the martyr gambles that he can maintain his composure even though he does not directly control the timing or manner of his death. He uses his killer's power to shame him, after first having forced him to kill--because a martyr seeks to force the hand of the killer, saying "you must either kill me or yield." Therefore the martyr exults in possessing a compound power over his victim. I not only forced you to use your power to kill me, but I make mock of your power even as you do as I forced you to do. A martyr, if worthy, is therefore a very dangerous enemy. Few have what it takes to embrace that kind of martyrdom, meanwhile oppressors over time have made careful study of such mortal foes, and have developed to a high degree the best methods of breaking them.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I also think that we cannot use quantity as the ethical measuring stick either. If one man dies and saves a village, that sounds heroic, but if that village is made up of escaped convicted murderers, then, perhaps, it would have been better for the one man to live and the village to be wiped out.

Yes, I think it was Jesus himself who said "Some people in this world are simply worth less than others, it's easy to tell which ones they are, and nobody should be overly concerned with their welfare".

Oh, wait, no he didn't.

In the absence of any such principle, the numbers game is the only one in town.

[Lisa0315]

I also think that we cannot use quantity as the ethical measuring stick either. If one man dies and saves a village, that sounds heroic, but if that village is made up of escaped convicted murderers, then, perhaps, it would have been better for the one man to live and the village to be wiped out.

Yes, I think it was Jesus himself who said "Some people in this world are simply worth less than others, it's easy to tell which ones they are, and nobody should be overly concerned with their welfare".

Oh, wait, no he didn't.

In the absence of any such principle, the numbers game is the only one in town.

Why are you bringing Jesus into this?

Are you telling me that you do not value one life over another? I think I would call you a liar if you said that. We all place higher and lower values on the lives of humans.

Lisa

[Preno]

I think arguing about whether the person has an obligation towards the society to stay alive is mostly a red herring. It's entirely possible for someone not to have any such obligation. But the society would still have the obligation to prevent him from making such a terrible decision (on the contrary, it would be immoral not to interfere). And suicide is a terrible decision almost by definition, except in cases of terminal illnesses or unbearable physical pain.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Are you telling me that you do not value one life over another?

Damn right I am.

I think I would call you a liar if you said that.

Well, and I'll thank you not to call me a liar. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

We all place higher and lower values on the lives of humans.

And all have homicidal twitches when the woman ahead of us in the queue tries to pay her gas bill in pennies, and has a long, moaning argument with the clerk about it.

But that doesn't mean we advocate murder, or would stand by and see it done.

I have a stronger duty to my nearest and dearest than I do to strangers. And yes, given a choice, I'd want to see them saved over anyone else.

But I will not claim that their right to life is one iota stronger than that of anyone else on earth. How dare I even think it?

All of human history is stained by people claiming some other group of people to be subhuman, inferior, and unworthy of consideration in moral issues.

It's okay, they're only jews
It's okay, they're only black people
It's okay, they're only pagans
It's okay, they're only christians
It's okay, they're only catholics
It's okay, they're only muslims
It's okay, they're only native americans
It's okay, they're only protestants
It's okay, they're only criminals
It's okay, they're only communists
It's okay, they're only vagrants
It's okay, they're only confederates
It's okay, they're only addicts
It's okay, they're only heretics
It's okay, they're only japanese
It's okay, they're only commoners,

It's not like people are getting killed...

Well, fuck that.

If human life has value, it has it inherently and inalienably. It's not a quality you have to earn, it's part of being a human.

I will not carry a weapon. I will not served the armed forces. I will not support the death penalty, even if my family were victims. I'd very likely want to to strangle the guy with my bare hands, but I'd damn well expect people to stop me - and I would appeal the sentence myself.

And I will run into a burning jail exactly as fast as I'd run into a burning orphanage.

You speak of not having the right to judge?

I'd say it starts here on earth.

[Nialler]

My class had a good debate on the morality of suicide. I am categorically for the freedom to commit suicide and those against me usually resorted to some sort of theological argument. I asked them a question that they seemed to have a difficult time answering, and so I thought I'd try my luck at the war room. Here it is:

How can one consistently reconcile the belief that suicide is morally wrong with the valorization of soldiers who kill themselves to save their fellow soldier. For instance, consider a soldier who jumps on a gernade to save the life of his buddy.


It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?

You're wrong from the start in your assumptions.

You claim that the act of the soldier is "inescapably a suicidal act".

That is an unwarranted assumption.

Think of it in the following way:

What was the intention of the soldier when he jumped on the grenade?
Will he be disappointed if the grenade turns out to have been dud and he survives?

I would move that the soldier's intention was solely geared towards saving the lives of his colleagues, and that it was not his primary intention to kill himself, although he would accept that as an undesirable possible outcome of his actions.

I am sure that he would be hugely relieved if the grenade turned out to be dud or if his body armour was adequate to save his life.

FYI, I can say this with some confidence having read interviews with Matt Croucher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Croucher , who did exactly that and survived.

In the absence of his intent to die, and in the presence of at least some possibility that he would survive, there is no way that you can describe the act as suicide.

The same principle can be seen in people who take extreme risks and die as a result. Their behaviour in, for example, jumping from a plane at 20000 ft and freefalling 19500 feet may look all but suicidal to some, and their death if it goes wrong may subsequently look inevitable, but their death was never the intention of the exercise. Their survival was.

That's why I don't like the term "suicide" bomber. Their primary motive behind their action is to kill people. Their death is a nasty concommitant to the act. Now, you might say that their religious fervour has informed them that they can gain a place in Paradise by killing themselves so long as they take out many infidels as well. This could be portrayed as a statement that suicide was, after all, their intent. In my view, though, to call them "suicide" bombers is to grant tacit acceptance of this aspect of their actions and lends authority to the dubious ethical and religious arguments of those who persaude them in their acts.

[dancer_rnb]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

Lisa

You need to be in my parents' postion before you say this, Lisa.
End case diabetes is horrible. She kept asking to die, so my parents
committed suicide together.

[Nialler]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

Lisa

You need to be in my parents' postion before you say this, Lisa.
End case diabetes is horrible. She kept asking to die, so my parents
committed suicide together.

In many cases the desire to keep someone alive seems to me to be more selfish. We want them to cling to a miserable and difficult existence why? Because we are uncomfortable with the idea of suicide? Because we will miss them?

Both are selfish reasons.

[Preno]

In many cases the desire to keep someone alive seems to me to be more selfish. We want them to cling to a miserable and difficult existence why? Because we are uncomfortable with the idea of suicide? Because we will miss them?

Both are selfish reasons.How about because it's often quite likely that they will get over whatever reason made them choose suicide (some form of depression, let's say) if they're given the chance.

I don't think missing anyone has much to do with this - if it did, people wouldn't try to prevent complete strangers from killing themselves (which they do, even though they clearly won't miss them since they don't even know them).

[Lisa0315]

Are you telling me that you do not value one life over another?

Damn right I am.

I think I would call you a liar if you said that.

Well, and I'll thank you not to call me a liar. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

We all place higher and lower values on the lives of humans.

And all have homicidal twitches when the woman ahead of us in the queue tries to pay her gas bill in pennies, and has a long, moaning argument with the clerk about it.

But that doesn't mean we advocate murder, or would stand by and see it done.

I have a stronger duty to my nearest and dearest than I do to strangers. And yes, given a choice, I'd want to see them saved over anyone else.

But I will not claim that their right to life is one iota stronger than that of anyone else on earth. How dare I even think it?

All of human history is stained by people claiming some other group of people to be subhuman, inferior, and unworthy of consideration in moral issues.

It's okay, they're only jews
It's okay, they're only black people
It's okay, they're only pagans
It's okay, they're only christians
It's okay, they're only catholics
It's okay, they're only muslims
It's okay, they're only native americans
It's okay, they're only protestants
It's okay, they're only criminals
It's okay, they're only communists
It's okay, they're only vagrants
It's okay, they're only confederates
It's okay, they're only addicts
It's okay, they're only heretics
It's okay, they're only japanese
It's okay, they're only commoners,

It's not like people are getting killed...

Well, fuck that.

If human life has value, it has it inherently and inalienably. It's not a quality you have to earn, it's part of being a human.

I will not carry a weapon. I will not served the armed forces. I will not support the death penalty, even if my family were victims. I'd very likely want to to strangle the guy with my bare hands, but I'd damn well expect people to stop me - and I would appeal the sentence myself.

And I will run into a burning jail exactly as fast as I'd run into a burning orphanage.

You speak of not having the right to judge?

I'd say it starts here on earth.

So, if you had to choose between saving the life of your child or the life of your child's rapist, you place no greater value on your child's life? Bullshit!

[His Noodly Appendage]

Like I said, I have a stronger duty towards those close to me. I owe them more.

That doesn't mean they're worth more.

[Nialler]

In many cases the desire to keep someone alive seems to me to be more selfish. We want them to cling to a miserable and difficult existence why? Because we are uncomfortable with the idea of suicide? Because we will miss them?

Both are selfish reasons.How about because it's often quite likely that they will get over whatever reason made them choose suicide (some form of depression, let's say) if they're given the chance.

I don't think missing anyone has much to do with this - if it did, people wouldn't try to prevent complete strangers from killing themselves (which they do, even though they clearly won't miss them since they don't even know them).

I'm really referring here to people who are all but incurably suffering. I think that it's selfish to keep pressure on them to live.

[Preno]

Ah ok. Yes.

[Jet Black]

That's why I don't like the term "suicide" bomber. Their primary motive behind their action is to kill people. Their death is a nasty concommitant to the act. Now, you might say that their religious fervour has informed them that they can gain a place in Paradise by killing themselves so long as they take out many infidels as well. This could be portrayed as a statement that suicide was, after all, their intent. In my view, though, to call them "suicide" bombers is to grant tacit acceptance of this aspect of their actions and lends authority to the dubious ethical and religious arguments of those who persaude them in their acts.

interesting point. What would be your preferred term? something that puts greater focus on the fact that they're killing other people?

[Nialler]

That's why I don't like the term "suicide" bomber. Their primary motive behind their action is to kill people. Their death is a nasty concommitant to the act. Now, you might say that their religious fervour has informed them that they can gain a place in Paradise by killing themselves so long as they take out many infidels as well. This could be portrayed as a statement that suicide was, after all, their intent. In my view, though, to call them "suicide" bombers is to grant tacit acceptance of this aspect of their actions and lends authority to the dubious ethical and religious arguments of those who persaude them in their acts.

interesting point. What would be your preferred term? something that puts greater focus on the fact that they're killing other people?

"Human Weapons".

It would remind them that they are now humans who have been subverted into a means of killing people. It personalises them while simultaneously depersonalising them.

[Quizalufagus]

I believe "homicide bomber" is the term prefered by some folks on the right.

But that's exactly what selfishness means--giving oneself the priority, making oneself the focus of one's actions or thoughts.

No, that's not what selfishness means. Read your dictionary. Selfishness isn't merely caring for oneself, it is caring only for oneself. Selfishness is caring for oneself to the complete exclusion of caring for others.

[dancer_rnb]

That's why I don't like the term "suicide" bomber. Their primary motive behind their action is to kill people. Their death is a nasty concommitant to the act. Now, you might say that their religious fervour has informed them that they can gain a place in Paradise by killing themselves so long as they take out many infidels as well. This could be portrayed as a statement that suicide was, after all, their intent. In my view, though, to call them "suicide" bombers is to grant tacit acceptance of this aspect of their actions and lends authority to the dubious ethical and religious arguments of those who persaude them in their acts.

interesting point. What would be your preferred term? something that puts greater focus on the fact that they're killing other people?

"Human Weapons".

It would remind them that they are now humans who have been subverted into a means of killing people. It personalises them while simultaneously depersonalising them.

I think this is a better term than "homicide bomber." Mcveigh wasn't committing homicide when he set off that bomb in Oklahoma City? The only bomber who possibly isn't would be one who calls in a warning with enough time left to evacuate. I think the use of "homicide bomber" is an attempt to suppress information.

[Rivka]

It's a terrible argument, imho.

However, I agree completely with our conclusion. Our bodies, our minds and our lives are our own, to do with as we please.

I'd argue that the soldier's decision to end his/her life by falling on a grenade is still a suicide, but an altruistic one. In this sense, it's put in a totally different class than a gun to one's head. However, the person who holds a gun to his/her head isn't always "carelessly taking his own life." As others have said, this person may be in horrible chronic pain. Even if not, in my experience, suicide usually not a rash decision. In psychiatric wards you'll often meet people who are in for "suicidal ideation" rather than a "suicide attempt," because I think most people who are in serious physical or emotional pain are hesitant to take their own lives.

That said, is it suicide if someone is tortured to death for not divulging information? Is it suicide if a mother dies from being hit by flying shrapnel in a homocide bombing from covering her baby with her body on a bus?

Just curious as to what you think.

[Nialler]

It's a terrible argument, imho.

However, I agree completely with our conclusion. Our bodies, our minds and our lives are our own, to do with as we please.

I'd argue that the soldier's decision to end his/her life by falling on a grenade is still a suicide, but an altruistic one.
How so? The death of the soldier is a likelihood, but not inevitable, and it isn't the intent behind the action.

I gave the example earlier in the thread of a British soldier who did that very thing in Afghanistan and survived. He was blown 30 yards and was concussed and had a bloodied nose, which speaks volumes for the quality of the body protection he had.

Needless to say, he was a very happy bunny indeed to have survived the incident, and has been awarded the highest military honours.

Now the point is that he was not trying to kill himself. His death was a likely - indeed, overwhelmingly probable - outcome from his actions, but was certainly not the intended outcome or a desirable outcome. He did not want to die, as evidenced by his relief at his survival. As he jumped on the device he may have hoped above all else that this was a dud device and that it would not explode at all. I can't stress this enough. He did not want to die at any stage of the incident, but accepted it as a possible outcome of his actions. Having survived the incident, he made no further attempt to kill himself, which is an additional indication that the will to die was never there.

Furthermore, it was highly likely that inaction would result in his death anyway. Remember, the intent is to save the lives of colleagues. This implies that his life also is already in the gravest danger, so we are not looking at a scenario wherein he is in an entirely safe situation and is taking a risk from that position of safety. In fact, he is almost inevitably going to die. In this case, he is deciding *how* to die if it's going to happen in the immediate future, not *whether* he will die in that timescale.

Given that he was not reducing the length of his likely survival, it is even more difficult to describe it as suicide. The reasoning is: "I am going to die in .1 of a second. I can die in .1 of a second in a way that saves my colleagues' lives. I'll die that way instead."

[DMB]

I have only just read through this thread, having been largely absent from the internet for a while. I think that this thread (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=7219) that I started a few days ago deals with certain aspects of the question.

In pedantic mode, the word "suicide" simply means self-killing. It's only because in some cultures it has gathered a pejorative sense that people are unwilling to use it in all appropriate situations.

I would question whether the "heroic" person who "sacrifices" himself for others or for an ideal is always intending suicide. Where it is deliberate, as, for example, in the case of suicide bombers* or where someone refuses to save his/her life by giving away information, then, yes, it is clearly intentional suicide. But some of the cases of heroism, such as the soldier who throws himself on a grenade or the mother who dies protecting her child may not be the result of a well-thought-out calculation and intention but rather of either instinct or a behaviour pattern that has been inculcated by the norms of society. Some of these things happen too fast for them to be thought out. To take a trivial example, I fell down a complete flight of stairs while holding my six-month-old baby. All I could think of while falling was, "I must protect my baby." I had no time to think of anything more complicated. (I succeeded in falling under the baby, who was quite undamaged.) The result could have been that rather than being injured I could have died. But the possibility of death didn't enter my mind.

*The Tamil tigers are sacrificing themselves for Tamil nationalism; the Islamist suicide bombers are doing so for their conception of Islam.

I would question too whether it is such a sacrifice to kill oneself or let oneself be killed if one has a strong enough belief in one's survival after a bodily death. What suicide means is obviously different for those who believe in an afterlife and those who don't.

Value statements such as "life is precious" need justification. In general, we seem to be biologically wired to value the lives of our own kin. Anything beyond that is culturally acquired. The words we use to describe different forms of killing betray our cultural values. Most people don't talk about soldiers in battle "murdering" the "enemy". As far as our own lives are concerned, we also have a built-in urge to preserve them, that we share we much less complex creatures than ourselves. But that doesn't in itself make life "precious". We all differ on what makes life worth living.

When I was young, I was often depressive, and the knowledge that if things got unbearable I could always commit suicide sometimes paradoxically helped me to cope. But when my first child was born, I remember thinking, despite my general pleasure in having the baby, "Oh dear, now my life isn't my own; suicide is no longer an option." My big consolation had been removed.

Now as I approach 70, with a body that is already letting me down in various ways, I feel that my life has become rather less "precious" than it would be for someone younger. There are still things I care about and want to keep working for, but there is no doubt that my overall quality of life has declined. I don't want to die yet, but I can see that the time may come when the rational decision will be to call a halt. I have explained this to my children, who are all independent adults. I don't think that they want me dead, but I fear a time when they do. My father died 19 years ago of cancer, begging for euthanasia to ease his suffereing and loss of dignity. My FIL lived into his 90s and had a pretty miserable last few years. My MIL at 96 and my mother at 94 have suffered in different ways. The first has been deaf, blind and paralysed for some years, is totally dependent on others 24/7 and wants to die. The latter suffered for years from increasing dementia. Happily for her, she has now arrived at the stage of being like a very small child with all aspects of her memories and her adult personality expunged. As my son says, "There's nobody at home." To be prefectly frank, I would be much happier if both of them died now. Witnessing their decline and suffering has been very painful and ultimately pointless. I don't want my children to go through this experience with me, any more than I want to go through such a process for myself.

With increased longevity, unaccompanied by increased years of life wothout major disability, these problems are going to face more and more people.

[Kissaki]

I agree entirely with HNA here: just because someone has more value to me, doesn't mean they have more value objectively.

[cape_royds]

That's why I don't like the term "suicide" bomber. Their primary motive behind their action is to kill people. Their death is a nasty concommitant to the act. Now, you might say that their religious fervour has informed them that they can gain a place in Paradise by killing themselves so long as they take out many infidels as well. This could be portrayed as a statement that suicide was, after all, their intent. In my view, though, to call them "suicide" bombers is to grant tacit acceptance of this aspect of their actions and lends authority to the dubious ethical and religious arguments of those who persaude them in their acts.


But one of the tactical problems with suicide bombers is that many of them are actually too eager to attain martyrdom. They often somewhat prematurely detonate their explosives and fail to achieve the maximum effect on the intended target. That's why considerable care is taken with the recruitment and training of suicide bombers; the organizers are looking for a suicide bomber who is most likely to fully complete the mission.

[James T]

In many cases the desire to keep someone alive seems to me to be more selfish. We want them to cling to a miserable and difficult existence why? Because we are uncomfortable with the idea of suicide? Because we will miss them?

Both are selfish reasons.Another selfish reason is when one does not want to recognise their own mortality, and denying someone else the right to have their chosen DNR observed was the result.

[SMS]

Just a point: Contrary to what Nialler seems to suggest, there is nothing about a suicide bomber that necessitates the intent to kill people. We can imagine a suicide bomber to destroy property or to just blow himself up to make a political statement. This latter is interesting because it deals with suicide as a political message. In such cases, we can hardly the person selfish insofar as they are killing themselves for a greater cause.The buddhist monk comes to mind*:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Burningmonk.jpg/250px-Burningmonk.jpg



*The monk lived, but only through intervention. The monk was fully ready to die.

[DMB]

Just a point: Contrary to what Nialler seems to suggest, there is nothing about a suicide bomber that necessitates the intent to kill people. We can imagine a suicide bomber to destroy property or to just blow himself up to make a political statement. This latter is interesting because it deals with suicide as a political message. In such cases, we can hardly the person selfish insofar as they are killing themselves for a greater cause.The buddhist monk comes to mind*:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Burningmonk.jpg/250px-Burningmonk.jpg



*The monk lived, but only through intervention. The monk was fully ready to die.

Are you equating this monk with a suicide bomber? :confused:

He didn't blow himself up, which could well have endangered others; he set himself alight.

[SMS]

Are you equating this monk with a suicide bomber? :confused:


no. I'm trying to show that suicide can be used without hurting others and unselfishly.


He didn't blow himself up, which could well have endangered others; he set himself alight.


Again, there is nothing about the act of blowing one's self up that necessitates ill will against others or endangers other people. There could just be property damage or none at all.

[Dlx2]

I think it is important to note the target of such an attack before throwing around "human bomb" or "suicide bomber" or "homicide bomber" or whatever.

Blowing up a convoy of soldiers, for instance, is not homicide.

[James T]

War is just homicide on a larger scale. Still homicide though.

[Nialler]

Just a point: Contrary to what Nialler seems to suggest, there is nothing about a suicide bomber that necessitates the intent to kill people. We can imagine a suicide bomber to destroy property or to just blow himself up to make a political statement. This latter is interesting because it deals with suicide as a political message. In such cases, we can hardly the person selfish insofar as they are killing themselves for a greater cause.The buddhist monk comes to mind*:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Burningmonk.jpg/250px-Burningmonk.jpg



*The monk lived, but only through intervention. The monk was fully ready to die.
The suicide bomber is, by definition, using a specifically destructive means to kill others or destroy property. Suicide may not even be the prime otive, but instead be the means to ensure maximum damage. The acts of suicidde bombers are a long way removed from the act of a self-immolation monk.

One thing that ould interest me on the grenade-covering soldier thing is this; are there any military or ex-military posters here who have had this scenario discussed in training?

I ask because it seems to be logical that soldiers be trained to do this. The logic goes thus; if a trip-line is disturbed or a grenade lands beside you, you - the nearest soldier to the device - are certainly going to die. Experience has shown that the effects of smaller exlosive devices can be at least partially mitigated if they are covered by a helmet with the weight of a soldier. It falls to te soldier nearest the device to take this action in his own interest and that of his fellow soldiers. It gives him a fractionally better chance of survival an it allows his fleeing comrades an even better chance.

If this was the case, the action would certainly not be suicidal, but the reverse: an attempt to raise the odds of survival.

[SMS]

[QUOTE=Nialler;228708]The suicide bomber is, by definition, using a specifically destructive means to kill others or destroy property.


First point: you didn't include property in your prior examinations of a suicide bomber. Second point: The definition of a suicide bomber need not be one who means to kill or destroy others:

Main Entry: suicide bomber
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a person who deliberately kills themselves when detonating a bomb or commiting a terrorist act

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suicide%20bomber

Suicide may not even be the prime otive, but instead be the means to ensure maximum damage. The acts of suicidde bombers are a long way removed from the act of a self-immolation monk.

I don't see why this must be the case.



I ask because it seems to be logical that soldiers be trained to do this. The logic goes thus; if a trip-line is disturbed or a grenade lands beside you, you - the nearest soldier to the device - are certainly going to die. Experience has shown that the effects of smaller exlosive devices can be at least partially mitigated if they are covered by a helmet with the weight of a soldier. It falls to te soldier nearest the device to take this action in his own interest and that of his fellow soldiers. It gives him a fractionally better chance of survival an it allows his fleeing comrades an even better chance.


If you are hung up on the grenade analogy, then we can use someone who knowinlgy jumps in front of an incoming hail of bullets rather than have their friend suffer the bullets. I find your attempts to wiggle out of this to be quite lame.

[Nialler]

The definition that you offered includes the words "terrorist act". Killing onself is not a "terrorist act" unles others are damaged by it.

Try again.

Regarding your attempted dismissal of the grenade analogy I would like to see where that has been addressed by you. My point is not "lame" in that you haven't shown it to be. Jumping on the thing with the best armour may limit the damage to yourself and ensure that there are enough survivors to ensure that you can get medical treatment. My point that it may actually represent your only chance of survival has not been addressed by you. I await your reply. Your substantive repy. But I ain't holding my breath.

Regarding jumping in front of bulets, that's a different scenario and isn't the one you raised in your OP. I was addressing that one as it was the specific one that you raised.

[Nialler]

...
How can one consistently reconcile the belief that suicide is morally wrong with the valorization of soldiers who kill themselves to save their fellow soldier. For instance, consider a soldier who jumps on a gernade to save the life of his buddy.


It seems to me that the act of the soldier is inescapably a suicidal act. What may differ is the motive of the suicide. But still, the act of the soldier is suicidal, no?

I'll remind you of the premise to which I was responding. This was what you said in your OP.

I disagree that the scenario represents suicide for the following reasons:

The intent is not suicidal. I have referenced one survivor of such an episode who was entirely thrilled to survive the thing.
Even if death is seen to be almost inevitable, the intent to die is not there, but the person's desire to live is overcome by a desire for an alternative positive outcome and by the desire to save the lives of others.
An attempt to smother the blast may represent a better chance of survival than doing nothing. In this even, the jum on the grenade is motivated by the best chance of survival.
In saving the team, there is a greater chance of access to meical aid in the case of serious injury, therefore the act is again a survival strategy, not a suicide strategy.

You need to address these issues. Sticking your fingers in your ears is not a good strategy, and certainly not when a grenade has landed on the floor and is spinning slowly before your eyes.

[Jet Black]

I think it is important to note the target of such an attack before throwing around "human bomb" or "suicide bomber" or "homicide bomber" or whatever.

Blowing up a convoy of soldiers, for instance, is not homicide.

of course it is. homicide is any killing of a human by another.

[Tenebrae]

As someone who has been clinically depressed my whole life...

Suicide is the ultimate act of selfishness. Life is precious.

Lisa

I think selfish is the wrong word in all honesty.

I know when I was really suicidal my logic was that by killing myself I would be ending years of torment and crap on my family, and I sincerly believed that they would be better off without me.

When one is suicidally depressed their sense of logic and critical reasoning generally gets pretty fucked up and it doesnt work the same way it would if they were non depressed.


That is not suicide...but an accident. Seriously.
I fight for the right to die...and the right to euthanasia because of my family and personal experience.

I totally agree. I think it needs to be tightly controlled in order to protect those who can not have a voice of their own, eg those with an intellectual disability, mental unwellness, children etc.

Christians generally piss me off on this subject, they are generally so totally against euthanaisia yet they generally have never experienced someone dying in total agony. The incident that changed my experience was nursing a lady who was pretty much drowning in her own bodily fluids and really wanted me and all the other nursing staff to piss off leave her alone and let her die in peace.

I would have done that except there was no way in hell I was going to leave her in a wet bed. The lady was so small I could lift her up in my arms without putting any strain on my back.

And then there was the man who wanted to die so much he would put my hands around his neck, I didnt get it initially however the other nurse asked me "Has Mr X tried to get you to kill him, but putting your hands around his neck?"


I'd like to suggest to all those who oppose euthanaisa for the terminally ill and suffering that they spend a week in a terminal care or elder care unit.

[Tenebrae]

There are also those cases where to live on...you would only cause others to suffer emotionally...financially...
Wow!
I cannot see that as selfish.
Yes...individually judged...but judged by whom? and...how can anyone possibly have all of the facts? They might think they do...but do they really???

I recall one incident with a lady who had been pretty much reduced to a vegetable by a slow growing tumour. The tumour had been removed however there was no chance she would improve. She was being kept alive by a peg feed that supplied the necessary nutrients to her stomach


As for suicide being an attention seeking thing for some people. I'm of the opinion that if someone is trying to end their life or cutting or burning to get attention then something is still pretty fucked up. There are so many better ways to get that attention

[SMS]

The definition that you offered includes the words "terrorist act". Killing onself is not a "terrorist act" unles others are damaged by it.

Try again.




a suicide bomber= def.a person who deliberately kills themselves when detonating a bomb OR commiting a terrorist act

This definition has an OR; the OR is a disjunction. this means that there are at least two meanings to the definition. One disjunct can be true and the other false, but the disjunction is still true. This is rudimentary logic, Nailler. :wave: Thus,

if a person deliberately kills themselves when detonating a bomb, then they are a suicide bomber.


My point is not "lame" in that you haven't shown it to be. Jumping on the thing with the best armour may limit the damage to yourself and ensure that there are enough survivors to ensure that you can get medical treatment.

Even if I grant this (i don't) , you're missing the point. I can easily change the analogy to something else such like jumping in front of a hail of bullets knowing that you will die. Your counterarguments amount to nothing but handwaving.

To be clear: The issue is whether knowingly giving your life for another constitutes suicide. Whether or not the gernade narrative is accurate is irrelevant. Again: The issue is whether knowingly giving your life for another constitutes suicide. The gernade narrative just served for context and can be easily replaced. Yet, it need not be replaced. It is irrelevant.

[SMS]

I'll remind you of the premise to which I was responding. This was what you said in your OP.

I disagree that the scenario represents suicide for the following reasons:


As I say, Nialler, it does not matter. The issue of the thread is...

-How can one consistently reconcile the belief that suicide is morally wrong with the valorization of soldiers who kill themselves to save their fellow soldier.


You may very well show the gernade example to be poor--although i dont think you have--but the thread topic would remain untouched. Get it?

[James T]

-How can one consistently reconcile the belief that suicide is morally wrong with the valorization of soldiers who kill themselves to save their fellow soldier.Too easy, they are different.

But then suicide is only morally wrong some times anyway, since in certain circumstances suicide is also morally right.

[SMS]

Even if death is seen to be almost inevitable, the intent to die is not there,

I have-finally- found one of Nailler's insights to be provocative.


The highest intention of the soldier is to save the life of his friends. How the soldier intends on achieving his highest intention is by jumping on the gernade. Assuming that the soldier understands that the act of jumping on the gernade amounts to killing himself, then the soldier understands that jumping on the gernade entails (in a loose sense) his death. However, this may just mean that the soldier accepts his death and does not intend his death.

The problem with this is that it can also be applied to the so-called suicide bombers. The 'suicide bomber' needs not intend to end his life, but accepts that his life is to end. The 'suicide bomber' intends to serve a higher cause and intends to do that by blowing up some property or persons. He does not intend that his death; he accepts it. In fact, we can imagine a suicide bomber--perhaps not a religious one--that is thrilled to have somehow survived his bombing and blew up his target.

So, I think my original criticisms still apply.

[Nialler]

Even if death is seen to be almost inevitable, the intent to die is not there,

I have-finally- found one of Nailler's insights to be provocative.


The highest intention of the soldier is to save the life of his friends. How the soldier intends on achieving his highest intention is by jumping on the gernade. Assuming that the soldier understands that the act of jumping on the gernade amounts to killing himself, then the soldier understands that jumping on the gernade entails (in a loose sense) his death. However, this may just mean that the soldier accepts his death and does not intend his death.

The problem with this is that it can also be applied to the so-called suicide bombers. The 'suicide bomber' needs not intend to end his life, but accepts that his life is to end. The 'suicide bomber' intends to serve a higher cause and intends to do that by blowing up some property or persons. He does not intend that his death; he accepts it. In fact, we can imagine a suicide bomber--perhaps not a religious one--that is thrilled to have somehow survived his bombing and blew up his target.

So, I think my original criticisms still apply.

But the essential point remains that death is not 100% inevitable in the scenario. I have already demonstrated that through a real-life example. Furthermore, the likelihood in the example I gave is that had the soldier not jumped on the bomb he would have been killed. Jumping on the bomb was he best chance of survival, surrising as that may seem.

Suicide is an interesting subject for me, in that I've known a few people ho committed the act, iincluding one very close friend.

He jumped from a cliff in 1990. The coroner's verdict was "misadventure" rather than suicide. Now, to provide additional context it must be stressed that at that time in Ireland insurance companies didn't pay out in the event of suicide. Therefore coroners were loath to return a finding of suicide in all but the most absolutely clear cases.

Dave's brother hanged himself 11 years later. The practice of insurance companies had changed in the meantime. The verdict hadn't. His death was officially as a result of misadventure.

The family were perplexed at the verdict and entered into correspondence with the coroner, ho made it very clear that suicide could only be determined where there was very explicit expressed determination to end life. The person had to be of demonstrably sound mind, had to have expressed the desire to die (verbally in a note or in a conversation) and the attempt to kill oneself had to be completely and irrevocably terminal. The latter was important: if someone killed themselves but there had een a chance of survival (think a handful of pills), then the coroner couldn't be certain that they had expected to be found before they died.

The above conditions are what informs my definition of suicide. I the case of Dave and his brother, it is certain thatt they died by their own hand. They were both very severelyy depressed.That effected their decision-making and their deaths were acts carried out in great despair. It's ddebatable as to whether the word "suicide" applies to them.

Note that I'm not in some form of denia here and I'm not sqqueamish about saying that they may have committed suicide. I'm merely pointing out that in law as well as in common usage there are several conditions to meet before labelling a death a suicide.

[Jet Black]

The problem with this is that it can also be applied to the so-called suicide bombers. The 'suicide bomber' needs not intend to end his life, but accepts that his life is to end. The 'suicide bomber' intends to serve a higher cause and intends to do that by blowing up some property or persons. He does not intend that his death; he accepts it.


actually they do intend it. Giving their life to the cause is what gets them their virgins in heaven - so they are actually intending to kill themselves. Technically they are doing it selfishly, given that their end conditions are skewed by their fundementia.

[SMS]

The problem with this is that it can also be applied to the so-called suicide bombers. The 'suicide bomber' needs not intend to end his life, but accepts that his life is to end. The 'suicide bomber' intends to serve a higher cause and intends to do that by blowing up some property or persons. He does not intend that his death; he accepts it.


actually they do intend it. Giving their life to the cause is what gets them their virgins in heaven - so they are actually intending to kill themselves. Technically they are doing it selfishly, given that their end conditions are skewed by their fundementia.


Suicide bombers need not be muslims.

[SMS]

But the essential point remains that death is not 100% inevitable in the scenario. neither is it with the suicide bomber.


I have already demonstrated that through a real-life example. Furthermore, the likelihood in the example I gave is that had the soldier not jumped on the bomb he would have been killed. Jumping on the bomb was he best chance of survival, surrising as that may seem. You havent actually demonstrated this in any convincing way. There are no studies; or appeals to relevant authorities. you have provided nothing. In any case, it's not relevant to the OP.

[Jet Black]

The problem with this is that it can also be applied to the so-called suicide bombers. The 'suicide bomber' needs not intend to end his life, but accepts that his life is to end. The 'suicide bomber' intends to serve a higher cause and intends to do that by blowing up some property or persons. He does not intend that his death; he accepts it.


actually they do intend it. Giving their life to the cause is what gets them their virgins in heaven - so they are actually intending to kill themselves. Technically they are doing it selfishly, given that their end conditions are skewed by their fundementia.


Suicide bombers need not be muslims.

clearly I'm talking about that particular case.

[Nialler]

But the essential point remains that death is not 100% inevitable in the scenario. neither is it with the suicide bomber.


I have already demonstrated that through a real-life example. Furthermore, the likelihood in the example I gave is that had the soldier not jumped on the bomb he would have been killed. Jumping on the bomb was he best chance of survival, surrising as that may seem. You havent actually demonstrated this in any convincing way. There are no studies; or appeals to relevant authorities. you have provided nothing. In any case, it's not relevant to the OP.

I have provided the example of a soldier who jumped on a bomb and who survived the blast. That is sufficient to show that there is a chance of survival. Furthermore his citation referred to the saving of the lives of the other soldiers, indicating that the bobm blast would have been otherwise fatal to them and to him. Junping on the bomb actually saved his life, which is the opposite of suicide.

[SMS]

actually they do intend it. Giving their life to the cause is what gets them their virgins in heaven - so they are actually intending to kill themselves. Technically they are doing it selfishly, given that their end conditions are skewed by their fundementia.


Suicide bombers need not be muslims.

clearly I'm talking about that particular case.

Great. But, even i I grant you it, it does nothing against my argument.

[SMS]

I have provided the example of a soldier who jumped on a bomb and who survived the blast. yes, you have. However, this says nothing about the probability of surviving compared to his other options.


That is sufficient to show that there is a chance of survival. Of course there is. I was not doubting that. I don't think it does shit against my argument though.


Furthermore his citation referred to the saving of the lives of the other soldiers, indicating that the bobm blast would have been otherwise fatal to them and to him. Heh. I'd like to know how they came up with that conclusion.

Junping on the bomb actually saved his life, which is the opposite of suicide.
you have provided no reason to believe that it was the safest option and that the soldier undestood it was the safest option.