Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
Im sure there are countless examples of kids who are happier because one of their parents didnt commit suicide, lovers who are happier because their loved ones didnt commit suicide, and so on and so forth. So there are obviously people who benefit tremendously from suicide prevention...
It is myopic to only see everything in terms of personal responsibility and/or survival of the fittest.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cellophanedeity
As a primarily utilitarian society, we have to be against suicide. Suicide hurts everyone connected to the person that goes much more than the person that goes. Once you're dead, you're dead and don't care anymore, but everyone left alive has to suffer. As much as your life is primarily your own, your connection to others is immense, and we'd really rather have you living. It's much easier on the collective mental wellbeing if we only have one of us suffering.
But, in the same vein, if one of us is suffering, then the greatest good is still not being achieved. A utilitarian society, such as ours, must strive to cure suffering and illness.
|
If someone wants to leave his friends and family (permanently) to live far away, should he be prevented from doing so? How many people are happier because their s.o. chose not to leave them despite having difficulty? Even when their problems are easy to solve, we don't deny people the right to walk away. Thier right to self-determination trumps others' feelings. Why should this standard be reversed in cases of suicide?
__________________
And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.
|