SilentSadness
The rain pours eternally.
- Feb 28, 2023
- 1,140
The main argument against nihilism is that, without a God or a meaning to life, there can be no morality. This means that there is nothing bad about suicide prevention, or anything for that matter. This presents a functional moral system under nihilism that supports the right to die.
The Effects of Actions
If everything is meaningless, then why would actions have an effect?
Nihilism doesn't mean that actions change nothing. We all end in death, and nothing we do changes this, but that doesn't mean our actions don't have an effect while we are alive.
It's true that there is pleasure and pain; pleasure being gained from acts like eating and pain being gained from acts like touching fire. Pleasure and pain can also be inflicted upon us without us doing anything.
There is also happiness and suffering, and these are independent of pleasure and pain. You can be having pleasurable sex yet feel empty, and likewise you can be walking barefoot on hot coals yet feel happy due to the fact you know those watching you will see you as courageous.
Pleasure and pain can be artificially manufactured, such as through drugs and torture. Happiness and suffering are also artificially producable, because you can lie to someone which will give them pleasant or unpleasant ignorance. The lie will contribute to the empty or fulfilled feeling inside which means they must both be subsets of pleasure and pain.
In this way, pleasure and pain are physical feelings, whereas happiness and suffering are mental feelings. Pleasure and pain also seem to contribute to happiness and suffering, and it is the mental feelings which dictate someone's preferred action.
Right and Wrong Actions
Some moral theories say that the happiness / suffering caused (or intended to be caused) by an action are irrelevant, and that worshipping God or gaining honour are the highest values.
However, in addition to not knowing that God exists, there is no reason why worshipping him should be important. A successful moral theory should apply itself well to all possibilities, and a theory which crumbles if you take God out of the equation is balanced on weak footing.
Also, most religions say that if you choose to not worship God then he will forgive you, meaning there is no reason to do so. Furthermore, why should we worship him if he does exist? If the answer is that we will otherwise go to Hell, then the God must not be omnibenevolent as an all-loving God would not condemn anyone to eternal suffering, regardless of their actions. In addition, if he exists then he has given everyone a lot of suffering, even those who have done nothing wrong.
Why should our suffering be justified? If the reason is to give us free will, we should have the free will to choose not to be alive, and to not suffer. Thus, defining the right action as one that worships / supports God is flawed because there is no good reason to worship God.
As for honour, it seems to be an alternative route to happiness. People who chase honour believe that basic pleasure and happiness from dishonour are impure and won't lead to fulfillment. Instead, they seek honour, which is a form of happiness verified by others or an immaterial moral code. As other people affirm you as good and honourable, the happiness must be pure because it isn't damaging other people. In other words, honour is simply happiness with the added confirmation that others agree your path to happiness is valid.
With this reasoning, worshipping God is flawed and chasing honour is a glorified way of achieving happiness. With no other goal in sight, this means happiness, and a lack of suffering, must be the ultimate goal for all humans. Happiness and suffering are of course convoluted, and should not be confused with pleasure and pain.
If those are the ultimate goals, then they must define right and wrong actions: a right action leads (someone) to happiness and lack of suffering, and a wrong action leads (someone) to suffering and a lack of happiness. However, we don't know who to prioritise, and also happiness and suffering are subjective.
Choosing the Right Action
As happiness and lack of suffering are the goals of all humans, this presents a problem, because certain situations have conflicting outcomes. For example, if a sadist punches someone, it leads to happiness for the sadist but suffering for the victim.
This means we need a way to decide the right action. However, we know what the goals are, and we also know what brings us to those goals. For example, we know that betrayal makes us suffer.
We can universalise this by following the rule: "treat others as you would like to be treated". As we know what makes us suffer, we should know what makes others suffer as well and we can work to avoid it.
A problem with this is the question of why we should make others happy or not suffer. After all, they often hurt us in return. My response is that if everyone followed the rule, then everyone can agree that the world would be better. This also means we can decide who is good and who is bad by whether they follow the rule or not.
The Importance of Understanding
If the only moral rule is to treat others how you would like to be treated, this presents the problem of conflicting interests. This particularly presents a problem for suicide in that most people would prefer to live rather than die, so following the rule would mean they would force others to live.
However, this is not properly following the rule. The rule does not suggest that you should act as if everyone has the same interests as you; rather, it suggests you should act towards them as you would like others to act towards you if you were that person.
This solution presents another problem: some people think they want something that will not lead them to happiness and a lack of suffering. For example, someone who wants to hang themselves would no longer want to do it if they knew it would lead to failure and permanent injury.
This problem can be solved by taking into account someone's true desire; if they had the knowledge you had, it's what they would have chosen instead.
This is still a problem though, because it will lead people to think: "If only they knew the beauty of life, they would not want to kill themselves".
This is why understanding is important. A person may think they know better than someone else about what their true desire is, but they should listen to the reasons they give for their preference. If you hear their reasons and they are reasonable, you should change your mind about whether it's the right choice or not.
Therefore, someone should be allowed to ctb if the reasons for doing so are valid.
Reasons for Suicide
Reasons against Suicide Prevention
If someone forces someone to stay alive despite hearing these valid reasons, and doesn't have any valid objections themselves, that means they are not capable of reason and are not following the moral rule which means they are immoral.
The Effects of Actions
If everything is meaningless, then why would actions have an effect?
Nihilism doesn't mean that actions change nothing. We all end in death, and nothing we do changes this, but that doesn't mean our actions don't have an effect while we are alive.
It's true that there is pleasure and pain; pleasure being gained from acts like eating and pain being gained from acts like touching fire. Pleasure and pain can also be inflicted upon us without us doing anything.
There is also happiness and suffering, and these are independent of pleasure and pain. You can be having pleasurable sex yet feel empty, and likewise you can be walking barefoot on hot coals yet feel happy due to the fact you know those watching you will see you as courageous.
Pleasure and pain can be artificially manufactured, such as through drugs and torture. Happiness and suffering are also artificially producable, because you can lie to someone which will give them pleasant or unpleasant ignorance. The lie will contribute to the empty or fulfilled feeling inside which means they must both be subsets of pleasure and pain.
In this way, pleasure and pain are physical feelings, whereas happiness and suffering are mental feelings. Pleasure and pain also seem to contribute to happiness and suffering, and it is the mental feelings which dictate someone's preferred action.
Right and Wrong Actions
Some moral theories say that the happiness / suffering caused (or intended to be caused) by an action are irrelevant, and that worshipping God or gaining honour are the highest values.
However, in addition to not knowing that God exists, there is no reason why worshipping him should be important. A successful moral theory should apply itself well to all possibilities, and a theory which crumbles if you take God out of the equation is balanced on weak footing.
Also, most religions say that if you choose to not worship God then he will forgive you, meaning there is no reason to do so. Furthermore, why should we worship him if he does exist? If the answer is that we will otherwise go to Hell, then the God must not be omnibenevolent as an all-loving God would not condemn anyone to eternal suffering, regardless of their actions. In addition, if he exists then he has given everyone a lot of suffering, even those who have done nothing wrong.
Why should our suffering be justified? If the reason is to give us free will, we should have the free will to choose not to be alive, and to not suffer. Thus, defining the right action as one that worships / supports God is flawed because there is no good reason to worship God.
As for honour, it seems to be an alternative route to happiness. People who chase honour believe that basic pleasure and happiness from dishonour are impure and won't lead to fulfillment. Instead, they seek honour, which is a form of happiness verified by others or an immaterial moral code. As other people affirm you as good and honourable, the happiness must be pure because it isn't damaging other people. In other words, honour is simply happiness with the added confirmation that others agree your path to happiness is valid.
With this reasoning, worshipping God is flawed and chasing honour is a glorified way of achieving happiness. With no other goal in sight, this means happiness, and a lack of suffering, must be the ultimate goal for all humans. Happiness and suffering are of course convoluted, and should not be confused with pleasure and pain.
If those are the ultimate goals, then they must define right and wrong actions: a right action leads (someone) to happiness and lack of suffering, and a wrong action leads (someone) to suffering and a lack of happiness. However, we don't know who to prioritise, and also happiness and suffering are subjective.
Choosing the Right Action
As happiness and lack of suffering are the goals of all humans, this presents a problem, because certain situations have conflicting outcomes. For example, if a sadist punches someone, it leads to happiness for the sadist but suffering for the victim.
This means we need a way to decide the right action. However, we know what the goals are, and we also know what brings us to those goals. For example, we know that betrayal makes us suffer.
We can universalise this by following the rule: "treat others as you would like to be treated". As we know what makes us suffer, we should know what makes others suffer as well and we can work to avoid it.
A problem with this is the question of why we should make others happy or not suffer. After all, they often hurt us in return. My response is that if everyone followed the rule, then everyone can agree that the world would be better. This also means we can decide who is good and who is bad by whether they follow the rule or not.
The Importance of Understanding
If the only moral rule is to treat others how you would like to be treated, this presents the problem of conflicting interests. This particularly presents a problem for suicide in that most people would prefer to live rather than die, so following the rule would mean they would force others to live.
However, this is not properly following the rule. The rule does not suggest that you should act as if everyone has the same interests as you; rather, it suggests you should act towards them as you would like others to act towards you if you were that person.
This solution presents another problem: some people think they want something that will not lead them to happiness and a lack of suffering. For example, someone who wants to hang themselves would no longer want to do it if they knew it would lead to failure and permanent injury.
This problem can be solved by taking into account someone's true desire; if they had the knowledge you had, it's what they would have chosen instead.
This is still a problem though, because it will lead people to think: "If only they knew the beauty of life, they would not want to kill themselves".
This is why understanding is important. A person may think they know better than someone else about what their true desire is, but they should listen to the reasons they give for their preference. If you hear their reasons and they are reasonable, you should change your mind about whether it's the right choice or not.
Therefore, someone should be allowed to ctb if the reasons for doing so are valid.
Reasons for Suicide
- Suffering can be unbearable; we should be the ones to decide how much is too much
- Doing nothing leads to suffering rather than happiness
- Suffering is more common than happiness, especially for suicidal people
- The possibility of happiness and suffering are dictated by chance; death ensures that you won't suffer
- We all die anyway; the amount of happiness we can gain is limited by our lifespan
- The worst suffering is much worse than the best happiness
- The more humans that exist, the less resources are available for others
Reasons against Suicide Prevention
- People will commit suicide anyway, in more brutal ways
- Mental health resources are inadequate
- It assumes that everyone will find happiness and reduced suffering
- Forcing someone to live against their wishes is degrading and a reason to ctb
- It is a form of thought control; as it dictates that anyone who is suicidal is mentally ill, there can be no disagreement about forcing someone to stay alive
- It gives people an excuse to use physical violence on others
If someone forces someone to stay alive despite hearing these valid reasons, and doesn't have any valid objections themselves, that means they are not capable of reason and are not following the moral rule which means they are immoral.
