Suicide: Discussion of the Phenomenon

[Doc Holliday 199]

Teach people how to process feelings and emotions, especially the negatives and a lot of this "stuff" will go away.  As a society this is where I believe we have failed the most.  Depression, imo, is a response to emotions or feelings that have gone unnoticed, untouched, and unchanged for a period of time.  (That period of time is not a fixed or static variable.) 

I also believe the inability to process, to understand the emotions and feelings, their purpose, add in the why, negative emotions and feelings can compound, sometimes exponentially, to the point that it appears the only way out is death. 

Mental health is the hot topic phrase these days and it's nothing new.  However, it is the step in the right path.  Also, too many damn shrinks are foolish and don't know how to listen to their patients effectively and lead them to the right door, that the patient has to walk through, and in that process, teaching them what the emotions are, why they are, where they came from, and how to effectively release them instead of holding on to them for dear life, etc.

 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, XYZ said:

But why? There has to be a reason.

On fundamental philosophical questions such as this one, the potential range & depth & complexity of a satisfactory response is inversely related to the simplicity of the "why" question.  Why ought a man to live?  Why ought he not kill himself?  I'll give my answer with a lot of ethics jargon because it would be awfully tedious to answer without doing so; I apologize for this jargon but you are partially to blame for asking such a question:  

Of the three major approaches of normative ethics - virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism - it's fairly straightforward to provide a case for the immorality of suicide via the first two approaches.  For virtue ethics it would be hard to argue against the idea that to live and thrive and to overcome obstacles is not a merit to the excellency of one's character and it would be difficult to argue that to succumb to the weaknesses of the human condition are a credit to one's character.  For deontology, I think it could be demonstrated that it is a categorical imperative to live and thrive and thus we are duty bound to follow it.  The only approach that I think could be used to satisfactorily justify suicide as not immoral would be through a consequentialist approach such as utilitarianism.  Even then I think the case for most suicides would be weak, as they often seem to bring about more suffering than relief; although this would be the fundamental  point of contention and it could be argued that the sum total of suffering would be reduced by a suicide.  Regardless, I prefer virtue ethics primarily followed by deontology and I do not care for consequentialism; so my reasons for why I think a man ought not kill himself is because this diminishes from the excellency of his character and also because I think to live and thrive to the best of one's ability is a categorical imperative.            

[Guest]

This is an interesting question and definitely something that I’ve seen and, like some of you, have been through in some form or fashion. Without getting too detailed, my experience has given me the conclusion as of press time today that suicide would me immoral in the same way that killing someone else would be immoral. It all hinges on what we believe to be true about the Universe, would be my best guess to a root cause. I would argue that two people having learned the same things about things like physics and time and space could have two complete and opposite reactions to life; some condemning it in themselves and some affirming it (along with everything else in between).

[XYZ 2,154]

13 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

so my reasons for why I think a man ought not kill himself is because this diminishes from the excellency of his character and also because I think to live and thrive to the best of one's ability is a categorical imperative.            

In more mundane words, a man ought not to kill himself because he sucks if he does, and because he must live and thrive.

[XYZ 2,154]

17 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Without getting too detailed, my experience has given me the conclusion as of press time today that suicide would me immoral in the same way that killing someone else would be immoral. It all hinges on what we believe to be true about the Universe, would be my best guess to a root cause. I would argue that two people having learned the same things about things like physics and time and space could have two complete and opposite reactions to life; some condemning it in themselves and some affirming it (along with everything else in between).

Actually, you haven't provided any details at all. Why is suicide as immoral as killing someone else? What do you actually believe to be true about the universe?

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, XYZ said:

In more mundane words, a man ought not to kill himself because he sucks if he does, and because he must live and thrive.

In more mundane words I would say that (1) a man ought not to kill himself because his character is diminished if he does (compared to what it would be if he didn't) and (2) that a man is duty bound to not commit suicide unless he believes it would be good for all others to kill themselves if they were in his circumstances.  To elaborate on the 2nd point, would a man think it is good for his child to commit suicide even if they were in his circumstances as an adult?  If he would not want his child (or other people in general) to do so, then it is morally wrong for him to do so.  

Edited June 8, 2018 by Guest

[Goredho 17,410]

My wife's brother committed suicide when he was in high school, she in Jr high.  He was having lots of problems with their mom.  He left a suicide note behind for everyone but mom.  Nothing for her.  He had a girlfriend at the time.  She killed herself a short time later.

Both my wife, her mom and her father are all still profoundly affected by this, some 25 years later.  The amount of pain and anguish they went through and still deal with on days like his birthday or mother's day really makes it hard for me to have sympathy for him.  He didn't just kill himself.  He killed part of them.

I hope no one goes through what I've seen this family deal with as a result of his suicide.

Edit:  So in my opinion, no, its not at all the same as dying of cancer.  Had this guy died of cancer, his mom and pop wouldn't be blaming themselves for the rest of their lives for his death.  His sister wouldn't be wondering for the rest of her life what she could have done to stop it.  They would be able to remember the beautiful moments of his life because he hadn't made the choice to fucking end it.  His suicide was the most selfishly immoral act possible.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Goredho

[XYZ 2,154]

15 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

In more mundane words I would say that (1) a man ought not to kill himself because his character is diminished if he does (compared to what it would be if he didn't) and (2) that a man is duty bound to not commit suicide unless he believes it would be good for all others to kill themselves if they were in his circumstances.  To elaborate on the 2nd point, would a man think it is good for his child to commit suicide even if they were in his circumstances as an adult?  If he would not want his child (or other people in general) to do so, then it is morally wrong for him to do so.  

Why would it matter if it were appropriate for all others to kill themselves if they were in his circumstances? That seems contrived. What if you applied the same standard for other decisions? Like, I shouldn’t get this haircut unless I believe that every other person would want to get this haircut.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Why would it matter if it were appropriate for all others to kill themselves if they were in his circumstances? That seems contrived. What if you applied the same standard for other decisions? Like, I shouldn’t get this haircut unless I believe that every other person would want to get this haircut.

I find this terrible misrepresentation of categorical imperatives humorous and I will save it and use it as example in future discussions.  

[Pato del Muerto 52,529]

First thought was “is suicide on the rise?”

if so, how much is attributable to veterans and ptsd?

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Actually, you haven't provided any details at all. Why is suicide as immoral as killing someone else? What do you actually believe to be true about the universe?

It’s immoral because I believe philosophically that each person is fearfully and wonderfully made and that we are eternal, in the sense that our essence/soul/whatever you want to call it is infinite as well as having been created by an infinite being/God/creator whatever you want to call it. To destroy/destruct the creation is to think you know better/more than your creator: this is why I think there is courage and righteousness in suffering and living to the end (as opposed to euthanasia for medical reasons), it’s why I believe that abortion is immoral, and it’s why I believe suicide is immoral. I do absolutely have compassion and sympathy and empathy for the suffering human being though who might be tormented with depression, chronic physical pain, addiction, bullying, gender issues, or any other mental illness with documented high rates of suicide.

[Apep 645]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

First thought was “is suicide on the rise?”

if so, how much is attributable to veterans and ptsd?

The CDC has reported that suicides are up 30% since 1999.

[sidis 9,832]

5 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I find this terrible misrepresentation of categorical imperatives humorous and I will save it and use it as example in future discussions.  

AoC, don't be like that...you're better than that [/no logical fallacy for appeal to flattery].  his inquiry was sincere.  drop some kantian knowledge.

[XYZ 2,154]

6 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

I find this terrible misrepresentation of categorical imperatives humorous and I will save it and use it as example in future discussions.  

OK, then explain the meaning of a categorical imperative. You started the thread. You brought up the morality of suicide. Now I’m asking you questions about why you think what you think, and so far you haven’t gotten very far in the way of providing substantive answers.

[sidis 9,832]

and ps, i suspect that if most people intent on committing suicide could take an AoC-like hyper logical and rational approach instead of an emotional one, in the deontological context, they would view themselves as falling under kamm's principle of permissible harm...or as you said above, would at bottom, result in a net positive in benefit/suffering in the long-term.

[XYZ 2,154]

7 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

It’s immoral because I believe philosophically that each person is fearfully and wonderfully made and that we are eternal, in the sense that our essence/soul/whatever you want to call it is infinite as well as having been created by an infinite being/God/creator whatever you want to call it. To destroy/destruct the creation is to think you know better/more than your creator: this is why I think there is courage and righteousness in suffering and living to the end (as opposed to euthanasia for medical reasons), it’s why I believe that abortion is immoral, and it’s why I believe suicide is immoral. I do absolutely have compassion and sympathy and empathy for the suffering human being though who might be tormented with depression, chronic physical pain, addiction, bullying, gender issues, or any other mental illness with documented high rates of suicide.

If you think we are eternal, then the eternal part of us would move on to the afterlife after suicide, no? Same as after a natural or accidental death. It’s not like you would be killing the eternal part also.

[TwiceHorn 31,506]

4 hours ago, XYZ said:

So suicide = mental illness? There’s no chance of a person with a clear mind to come to the decision that he/she doesn’t want to live anymore?

No, valid point, but I think the majority of them are related to clinical depression or substance abuse.  One prominent example of a couple that were not, RADM Chester A. Nimitz, Jr.:

Quote

The health of Chester and his wife, Joan, had deteriorated in their later years. Joan was blind, and Chester had lost 30 pounds due to a prolonged stomach disorder. He was also suffering from congestive heart failure. On January 2, 2002, Chester Nimitz Jr. committed voluntary suicide with his wife Joan by ingesting a quantity of sleeping pills in their home at a retirement residence in Needham, Massachusetts.^[4] He left a note stating:^[17]

Our decision was made over a considerable period of time and was not carried out in acute desperation. Nor is it the expression of a mental illness. We have consciously, rationally, deliberately and of our own free will taken measures to end our lives today because of the physical limitations on our quality of life placed upon us by age, failing vision, osteoporosis, back and painful orthopedic problems.

Chester and Joan are buried at Pleasant Hill Cemetery in Wellfleet, Massachusetts.

 

[Celery Man 20,970]

and ps, i suspect that if most people intent on committing suicide could take an AoC-like hyper logical and rational approach instead of an emotional one, in the deontological context, they would view themselves as falling under kamm's principle of permissible harm...or as you said above, would at bottom, result in a net positive in benefit/suffering in the long-term.

They'd kill themselves long before they got through the first chapter of whatever book, but yeah they'd probably come up some version of nobody really cares, or one big disappointment is better than 50 years of small ones, or more likely "doing this is bad and will harm the ones I love, but what a surprise I turn out to be a piece of shit in the end".

Edited June 8, 2018 by Celery Man

[TwiceHorn 31,506]

15 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

It’s immoral because I believe philosophically that each person is fearfully and wonderfully made and that we are eternal, in the sense that our essence/soul/whatever you want to call it is infinite as well as having been created by an infinite being/God/creator whatever you want to call it. To destroy/destruct the creation is to think you know better/more than your creator: this is why I think there is courage and righteousness in suffering and living to the end (as opposed to euthanasia for medical reasons), it’s why I believe that abortion is immoral, and it’s why I believe suicide is immoral. I do absolutely have compassion and sympathy and empathy for the suffering human being though who might be tormented with depression, chronic physical pain, addiction, bullying, gender issues, or any other mental illness with documented high rates of suicide.

When you take judgment out of morality, and consider it on its own, it is the decision that is optimal for both the individual human as well as humankind.  This is even true of religiously oriented morality:  most of the rules and injunctions of the worlds' religions are geared toward optimizing the individual within the context of the mass, even if some of them are ultimately misguided (don't eat shellfish or pork, for noncontroversial examples).

 

Without knowing the history of it, I would assume that suicide was considered immoral because only the Creator should have say over the birth and death of a man.  But that can be extended without invoking a creator that there should be moral compunction associated with premature or unnatural ending of life, whether by the hand of another or one's own, because no matter how appropriate it may seem to end another's life or one's own, we really don't know what's going to happen or have perfect information so it might be an horrendous mistake.

[Mole 4,333]

On the issue of changing views of the morality of suicide and the apparent increase in suicide rates, I can share my story - the view of suicide as an immoral act significantly increased my chances for actually killing myself and made it significantly harder to climb out of the pit.

For a period of about 3 years, I had persistent, daily, unwanted, and detailed suicidal thoughts. I never took any steps to actually complete the act, but I had very detailed plans. Typically they centered around figuring out ways to minimize the suffering of my loved ones. I wasn't on any medication and showed no other symptoms of mental or physical illness. Life was otherwise pretty good. These thoughts were obviously very distressing. I made one attempt to reach out to a loved one for help but received a relatively negative reaction. Additionally, it felt like I was surrounded by moralizing about suicide.

You know how if you are thinking about buying a house you notice every for sale sign or if you are looking for a job you notice every help wanted sign? The same thing happens when you're having these thoughts; you notice every statement anyone makes about it. There's a suprising amount of dscussion on the subject that goes on. When you're hyperaware of suicide talk, the picture culturally painted is pretty damning - mental illness, selfish, immoral, hell-bound, sin, etc. These are strong statements of judgment and condemnation. Even the compassionate platitude of mental illness reeks of condemnation in our culture.

So I was in a state where I was having increasingly distressing and unwanted thoughts. At the same time, I was picking up all of the negative judgments about suicide and was placing that burden on myself. Not only was I having these terrible thoughts, I eventually saw myself negatively due to these intrusive thoughts. I identified with them as central to my being. Do you think the thoughts increased or decreased? 

Obviously, they got way worse - more intense and more of them. Not only was I in a pit, now the world was shoveling dirt into it.

I never sought any help; why should I if it would only bring more judgment? I'm fortunate that my path out of the pit didn't need help. I suspect that my experience is pretty uncommon in this regard. I ultimately recognized these unwanted thoughts as spiritually outside of my being and nature - an accuser lying to me about who I am. Once I recognized that these were thoughts that I didn't really want and they in no way represented anything lasting or meaningful about me, their power faded and they slowly went away. In the years since they left, I have had maybe one or two times where they've briefly returned, but now that I understand them and have tools to combat them, they're no more meaningful than the breeze.

Now obviously suicidal thoughts are different than going through with the act, but when you're in the bottom of a hole, you don't really see much of a difference.

As an abstraction, sure suicide is bad, but when dealing with the reality, I can't see anything other than compassion for those suffering. In this case, I think that precludes any kind of moral judgment. For the religiously minded, suicide is described without judgment in the Bible.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Mole

[XYZ 2,154]

Mole:

Thanks for sharing that.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, XYZ said:

If you think we are eternal, then the eternal part of us would move on to the afterlife after suicide, no? Same as after a natural or accidental death. It’s not like you would be killing the eternal part also.

Your soul lives on in eternity, but eternal darkness/void/whatever instead of shalom/harmony. Again, my $.02, your mileage may and likely varies and that’s cool too!

[sidis 9,832]

1 hour ago, XYZ said:

OK, then explain the meaning of a categorical imperative. You started the thread. You brought up the morality of suicide. Now I’m asking you questions about why you think what you think, and so far you haven’t gotten very far in the way of providing substantive answers.

XYZ, this is a great place to start...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

[Guest]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I  would assume that suicide was considered immoral because only the Creator should have say over the birth and death of a man.  But that can be extended without invoking a creator that there should be moral compunction associated with premature or unnatural ending of life, whether by the hand of another or one's own, because no matter how appropriate it may seem to end another's life or one's own, we really don't know what's going to happen or have perfect information so it might be an horrendous mistake.

This is my belief.

[Mole 4,333]

I'd add that I think it's perfectly healthy and good to have a philosophical discussion about the morality of anything, including this subject. I don't want my statements about the problems of the morality of suicide to be taken as a condemnation of the discussion.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Mole said:

On the issue of changing views of the morality of suicide and the apparent increase in suicide rates, I can share my story - the view of suicide as an immoral act significantly increased my chances for actually killing myself and made it significantly harder to climb out of the pit.

For a period of about 3 years, I had persistent, daily, unwanted, and detailed suicidal thoughts. I never took any steps to actually complete the act, but I had very detailed plans. Typically they centered around figuring out ways to minimize the suffering of my loved ones. I wasn't on any medication and showed no other symptoms of mental or physical illness. Life was otherwise pretty good. These thoughts were obviously very distressing. I made one attempt to reach out to a loved one for help but received a relatively negative reaction. Additionally, it felt like I was surrounded by moralizing about suicide.

You know how if you are thinking about buying a house you notice every for sale sign or if you are looking for a job you notice every help wanted sign? The same thing happens when you're having these thoughts; you notice every statement anyone makes about it. There's a suprising amount of dscussion on the subject that goes on. When you're hyperaware of suicide talk, the picture culturally painted is pretty damning - mental illness, selfish, immoral, hell-bound, sin, etc. These are strong statements of judgment and condemnation. Even the compassionate platitude of mental illness reeks of condemnation in our culture.

So I was in a state where I was having increasingly distressing and unwanted thoughts. At the same time, I was picking up all of the negative judgments about suicide and was placing that burden on myself. Not only was I having these terrible thoughts, I eventually saw myself negatively due to these intrusive thoughts. I identified with them as central to my being. Do you think the thoughts increased or decreased? 

Obviously, they got way worse - more intense and more of them. Not only was I in a pit, now the world was shoveling dirt into it.

I never sought any help; why should I if it would only bring more judgment? I'm fortunate that my path out of the pit didn't need help. I suspect that my experience is pretty uncommon in this regard. I ultimately recognized these unwanted thoughts as spiritually outside of my being and nature - an accuser lying to me about who I am. Once I recognized that these were thoughts that I didn't really want and they in no way represented anything lasting or meaningful about me, their power faded and they slowly went away. In the years since they left, I have had maybe one or two times where they've briefly returned, but now that I understand them and have tools to combat them, they're no more meaningful than the breeze.

Now obviously suicidal thoughts are different than going through with the act, but when you're in the bottom of a hole, you don't really see much of a difference.

As an abstraction, sure suicide is bad, but when dealing with the reality, I can't see anything other than compassion for those suffering. In this case, I think that precludes any kind of moral judgment. For the religiously minded, suicide is described without judgment in the Bible.

Wow man; thanks for sharing this. Super encouraging testimony IMHO

[TwiceHorn 31,506]

6 minutes ago, Mole said:

I'd add that I think it's perfectly healthy and good to have a philosophical discussion about the morality of anything, including this subject. I don't want my statements about the problems of the morality of suicide to be taken as a condemnation of the discussion.

It's hard for many to separate morality from judgment.  And courageous sharing, there, thank you.  Your "path out of the pit" seems consistent with becoming what I call "outward-dwelling," that is, considering things in a context other than the self.  It can be very powerful stuff.

Edited June 9, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Guest]

I know it’s not many on this threads bag probably, but I heard a good song/video recently that did a good job detailing the suicidee and the emotions/anger of the survivors in a POV way that art can do.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AjKbw1Cqpt0

[sidis 9,832]

9 minutes ago, sidis said:

XYZ, this is a great place to start...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

And just FYI, do not take this as me endorsing or agreeing with AoC’s opinions. Like seemingly lots of things, I disagree with many of his opinions in this thread...particularly that the ethics and morality of suicide can be evaluated monolothically. Each incident requires and an individualized inquiry which is evident from a number of things, not the least of which is the reactions garnered. 

However, you seemed genuinely interested in understanding ethics (specifically categorical imperatives) in greater detail so I just thought I would share.  As an aside, categorical imperatives play a substantial role in debating the reason of certain elements of ontology and epistemology that you would think of as religious.  AoC is one of the best resources you could hope to find to discuss and learn from on these topics despite him being wrong about everything.

[El Diablo 4,232]

9 hours ago, Aphelion said:

This thread is for the discussion of the morality, the causes, and understanding the nature of suicide as a phenomenon.  Suicide has been on the rise over the past decade and has recently become the topic of national discussion due to recent suicides by the those who seem to have it all.

1.  Why is suicide on the rise?

I believe that mental health issues and suicides are on the rise due to a combination of social media and excessive screen time and shortage of face to face time, increased isolation in modern society, and the rise of sanitized secular ontological materialism in society and its tendency to lead one to nihilism.   

I brought it up in a previous post but at the time had not looked into the details of this "fact". Are we certain that suicides are increasing? 

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/nvdrs/stateprofiles.html

It's voluntary reporting by state, Texas it appears does not participate.

The reporting system was created in 2002. I can't imagine that the effectiveness of the program was nearly as good in the beginning as it is currently.

It might be more accurate to say that we are getting a clearer picture of the number of deaths annually that can be attributed to suicide than to say absolutely that there has been X amount of increase or perhaps even any increase at all. 

Thoughts?

Edited June 9, 2018 by El Diablo

[XYZ 2,154]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

XYZ, this is a great place to start...

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

So Aphelion is regurgitating Kant’s Philosophy?

[El Diablo 4,232]

Furthermore, states receive funding for participating.

"States that are funded for NVDRS operate under a cooperative agreement with CDC to whom all violent deaths are voluntarily reported. NVDRS funded six states initially. In 2016 CDC received funding to expand the system to a total of 40 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico."

Any chance at all that the more reporting you do as a state the more funding you get? Any chance at all that the more deaths you as the CDC report, the more funding you get to fund the states reporting?

[David Dennison 18,924]

I've had people close to me kill themselves. I miss them very much.

I do not think it is immoral. I do not think it is shameful. I do not think it is selfish.

I do think it is extremely tragic and heartbreakingly sad.

 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, sidis said:

AoC, don't be like that...you're better than that [/no logical fallacy for appeal to flattery].  his inquiry was sincere.  drop some kantian knowledge.

Ok, I misread his intentions. 

 

20 hours ago, XYZ said:

OK, then explain the meaning of a categorical imperative. You started the thread. You brought up the morality of suicide. Now I’m asking you questions about why you think what you think, and so far you haven’t gotten very far in the way of providing substantive answers.

These are fair points.  I apologize for being condescending.  

But I have provided substantive answers.  I'll be happy to provide additional details on the points I've given, but on your end you will have to take the time to genuinely consider what I'm saying; otherwise, anything I say will seem without substance.  So with that in mind, here is a bit more detail:

Virtue ethics:  This approach is based on the idea that a person should act in a way that is virtuous.  A virtue is defined as an excellent trait of character.  So an action is moral if it is virtuous (i.e. adds excellency to one's character) and an action is immoral if it is not virtuous (i.e. subtracts from excellency to one's character).  Virtue ethics can be viewed as a moral theory based on aesthetics, as what we view as virtuous is based on aesthetic qualities.  Thus, the biggest objection against virtue ethics is that it is ultimately subjective as some would argue that there is no such thing as objective aesthetics (i.e. who's to say what actions add excellency to character?).  As I mentioned before, this is my preferred approach to ethics.  I believe that there is such a thing as objective aesthetics, but that should probably be a discussion reserved for another day.

Regarding suicide, I think a person overcoming their personal demons & mental health issues, fighting through whatever terrible situation they are in, and overcoming their desires to end their life and deciding to continue on is definitely a contribution to the excellency of their character.  Likewise, I don't see how a person deciding to quit at life in the face of mental suffering adds to their character.  If I were writing a story that included a character that is meant to be a representation of the ideal man, I would not have him end his life by suicide.

Deontological ethics:   Deontology means the "study/logic of duty."  Deontolgical approaches are based on the idea that we have certain duties that we are morally obligated to do.  Kant argued that our duty is to act according to the Categorical Imperative (CI).  The CI can be worded as:  Act according to the maxim that you would wish all other rational people to follow, as if it were a universal law.  The CI was Kant's attempt to make rigorous the ethic of reciprocity (also know as the golden rule).  The golden rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you, while pure in intent, was thought to be not rigorous as a basis for morality; to give an example for why this was thought:  suppose a masochist were to take the golden rule literally, then he would be justified in inflicting pain on others.  So Kant developed the CI as a logically rigorous modification/improvement of the ethic of reciprocity and he based his deontological moral philosophy on it.  

Here is how to apply the CI to evaluate whether an action is moral.  Take a given action and ask (1) would we consider it to be permissible for any & all others to commit this action under equivalent circumstances and (2) would we consider it an obligation & beneficial for any & all others to commit this action under equivalent circumstances?  If the answer to (1) is no, then it is immoral and every person has a duty to not commit the action under those circumstances.  If the answer to (2) is yes, then every person has a duty to commit the action under those circumstances.  So using this criteria, is it moral for a person who is depressed to commit suicide?  If a person says that it is not immoral, then this means (according to the CI) that they would have to say that it is permissible for their wife, daughter, brother, etc, to commit suicide if they are depressed.  If they say that, no, I do not believe it is permissible for my loved ones to commit suicide, even if they are depressed, then they themselves are morally wrong for committing suicide due to depression.  Few people are willing to say that it is permissible for their loved ones to commit suicide due to depression and that they would not try to prevent it.  

Now let's apply this to your haircut example.  Suppose you want a flattop haircut.  You then ask (1) is it permissible for any & all others to get a flattop and (2) is it an obligation & beneficial for any & all others to get a flattop?  We could say that it is permissible, so therefore not immoral if one does get a flattop, but that one is not obliged nor is it necessarily beneficial for any & all others to get a flattop and therefore it is not a rule we can apply universally.  Therefore, one is neither duty bound to get a flattop nor are they duty bound to not get a flattop.  

Consequentialism:  Consequentialist theories are based on the idea that actions should be judged by their consequences and that one should do whatever maximizes the greatest good.  Probably the most well known among these moral theories is utilitarianism.  Total utility and/or the greatest good is derived by summing the positives (e.g. human happiness and well being, health, economic gain) and negatives (e.g. suffering, loss, poverty) of an action for all involved.  Utilitarianism is usually the basis for the arguments for the moral permissibility of suicide, as some argue that suicide eliminates the suffering of someone with mental health issues and so it can actually bring about a net gain in utility and/or the maximization of the good.  As I stated before, I am not a proponent of a consequentialist theories of morality and I do not find the utilitarian arguments given for the permissibility of suicide compelling.  The reason that I do not like the consequentialist theories of morality is because it is not even remotely feasible for us humans to actually derive the sum total of utlity or "the good" (as if it were something like tokens or currency) and the reason that I do not believe the utilitarian arguments given for the permissibility of suicide are compelling is because it is seldom clear that they bring about a net good (even if such a thing could be calculated) as they often leave in their wake the suffering of many.  

 

20 hours ago, sidis said:

and ps, i suspect that if most people intent on committing suicide could take an AoC-like hyper logical and rational approach instead of an emotional one, in the deontological context, they would view themselves as falling under kamm's principle of permissible harm...or as you said above, would at bottom, result in a net positive in benefit/suffering in the long-term.

Yep, I believe the only way to attempt to morally justify suicide is through a consequentialist approach and Kamm's principle of permissible harm is a type of consequentialist carve out of deontology.  In virtually every conversation I've heard & read on the permissibility of suicide, a consequitialist approach is assumed; this is also true in conversations I've had with people who do not reference the normative ethical theories and presumably have not studied them, but of course that is not necessary to make moral arguments based on maximizing the good.   

 

For those who argue that the question of the morality of suicide is not of significant consequence to the subject discussion:

If we cannot say that it is impermissible or immoral for one to commit suicide, then on what grounds can we say that one should not commit suicide?  If you argue that even if we cannot say that it is immoral generally, but that it would not be a net good for a given individual, then you are back to giving a moral argument.  So what possible reasons can we give to say that a person should not commit suicide that are not based in some system of morality?  I think the objections to the morality discussion are due to the religious connotations and because the discussion may seem excessively cerebral or academic and not actually applicable nor considered by those who are at risk.   Regarding the religious connotations, I think these can be avoided through transparent communication & explicit definitions, which I believe has been done in this thread.   Regarding the excessively academic discourse on ethics, I agree that vast majority of people do not communicate in this way and do not use this jargon, but I do believe it is of paramount importance for each of us to know conceptually, regardless of the terms used, and be able to express why one should not commit suicide and I believe that if more people knew why a person ought not commit suicide then less people would do so.  I do not think we can give satisfactory reasons for why one should not commit suicide without referencing and appealing to morality, either directly or indirectly.  

Edited June 9, 2018 by Guest

[Celery Man 20,970]

I think that regardless of what language and reasoning you use to explain why other people would be wrong to kill themselves, it's inconsequential because framing the argument better likely doesn't overwhelm the desire to not live misery for several more decades so that other people can be less sad.  It's not relevant to a potential suicide victim because the extent to which they would opt to continue to live in order to not devastate people around them is baked in from love, not a desire to behave morally.  The person who is thinking of killing himself probably already has a pretty low opinion of his value, pointing out moral shortcomings doesn't tilt things back the other direction.  And presumably things that are of significant consequence to the subject discussion = things that can cause people who may decide to kill themselves to instead not kill themselves.  To me, I think that comes down to how do we get people the help they need when they need it.  Which is tricky because different people need different help and it's difficult to know when they need it.  I feel like the best I can do is do things like say right now in this discussion to the theoretical suicidal surlster who may be reading that if you're clinically depressed and your world is entirely gray, you need some help and people will help you get it.  And you can have an astonishing recovery and experience real joy again in your life.

[GRHorn 105]

I've never heard a scenario described like that Mole, thanks for sharing.  This subject is puzzling to me because I've never known anyone to commit suicide. I've had periods for a month or two after personal or professional disappointment of feeling very down, but nothing close to depression I think. 

From what I can tell people that kill themselves have no hope.  Now that I have children I think that they would provide most people hope or something to live for and do better for.  I do think that people that kill themselves and have children, especially small ones, are selfish.  Sorry that's just my opinion.

I saw this and thought it was interesting.  No, I'm not uber religious.  I was raised Catholic, but now pretty much only go to church when I visit home.  This piece does speak to me in a way though.  We as a society are missing something.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31625/walsh-what-really-lies-root-our-cultures-suicide-matt-walsh

[XYZ 2,154]

Aphelion:

What bothers me about the points you are making on ethics is that you are bringing "baggage" into each of them, and by baggage I mean "should" statements that one is supposed to take at face value.

Virtue ethics:  This approach is based on the idea that a person should act in a way that is virtuous.

Deontological ethics:  Deontolgical approaches are based on the idea that we have certain duties that we are morally obligated to do.

Consequentialism:  Consequentialist theories are based on the idea that actions should be judged by their consequences and that one should do whatever maximizes the greatest good.

For each of those "shoulds", I have a question for you: why? And who decided that, and based on what?

[David Dennison 18,924]

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

I've never heard a scenario described like that Mole, thanks for sharing.  This subject is puzzling to me because I've never known anyone to commit suicide. I've had periods for a month or two after personal or professional disappointment of feeling very down, but nothing close to depression I think. 

From what I can tell people that kill themselves have no hope.  Now that I have children I think that they would provide most people hope or something to live for and do better for.  I do think that people that kill themselves and have children, especially small ones, are selfish.  Sorry that's just my opinion.

I saw this and thought it was interesting.  No, I'm not uber religious.  I was raised Catholic, but now pretty much only go to church when I visit home.  This piece does speak to me in a way though.  We as a society are missing something.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/31625/walsh-what-really-lies-root-our-cultures-suicide-matt-walsh

That's certainly one opinion. It ignores the fact that American society is saturated with God and that believers kill themselves every day.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That's certainly one opinion. It ignores the fact that American society is saturated with God and that believers kill themselves every day.

Maybe it’s Gods plan, to try and keep mental illness out of the gene pool.  Who knows?  I just hope like hell my kids have the sense and resources to keep from going there.  

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

That's certainly one opinion. It ignores the fact that American society is saturated with God and that believers kill themselves every day.

No shit believers kill themselves.  I still think it’s a pretty good theory. I need to look up stats but America is far less religious than it was even 20-30 years ago imo. 

How else do you explain suicides rising with mental health awareness and medication at such high levels?  Unless you blame the medication itself?  It’s an interesting discussion.  

iPhones and social media certainly contribute to people’s emptiness. They have artificial connections but less real ones.  The rise in suicides though is since 99. Predates both. 

[Brew 3,049]

16 hours ago, Mole said:

On the issue of changing views of the morality of suicide and the apparent increase in suicide rates, I can share my story - the view of suicide as an immoral act significantly increased my chances for actually killing myself and made it significantly harder to climb out of the pit.

For a period of about 3 years, I had persistent, daily, unwanted, and detailed suicidal thoughts. I never took any steps to actually complete the act, but I had very detailed plans. Typically they centered around figuring out ways to minimize the suffering of my loved ones. I wasn't on any medication and showed no other symptoms of mental or physical illness. Life was otherwise pretty good. These thoughts were obviously very distressing. I made one attempt to reach out to a loved one for help but received a relatively negative reaction. Additionally, it felt like I was surrounded by moralizing about suicide.

You know how if you are thinking about buying a house you notice every for sale sign or if you are looking for a job you notice every help wanted sign? The same thing happens when you're having these thoughts; you notice every statement anyone makes about it. There's a suprising amount of dscussion on the subject that goes on. When you're hyperaware of suicide talk, the picture culturally painted is pretty damning - mental illness, selfish, immoral, hell-bound, sin, etc. These are strong statements of judgment and condemnation. Even the compassionate platitude of mental illness reeks of condemnation in our culture.

So I was in a state where I was having increasingly distressing and unwanted thoughts. At the same time, I was picking up all of the negative judgments about suicide and was placing that burden on myself. Not only was I having these terrible thoughts, I eventually saw myself negatively due to these intrusive thoughts. I identified with them as central to my being. Do you think the thoughts increased or decreased? 

Obviously, they got way worse - more intense and more of them. Not only was I in a pit, now the world was shoveling dirt into it.

I never sought any help; why should I if it would only bring more judgment? I'm fortunate that my path out of the pit didn't need help. I suspect that my experience is pretty uncommon in this regard. I ultimately recognized these unwanted thoughts as spiritually outside of my being and nature - an accuser lying to me about who I am. Once I recognized that these were thoughts that I didn't really want and they in no way represented anything lasting or meaningful about me, their power faded and they slowly went away. In the years since they left, I have had maybe one or two times where they've briefly returned, but now that I understand them and have tools to combat them, they're no more meaningful than the breeze.

Now obviously suicidal thoughts are different than going through with the act, but when you're in the bottom of a hole, you don't really see much of a difference.

As an abstraction, sure suicide is bad, but when dealing with the reality, I can't see anything other than compassion for those suffering. In this case, I think that precludes any kind of moral judgment. For the religiously minded, suicide is described without judgment in the Bible.

A number of years ago I was in a similar place. Work sucked, life sucked, we were broke and in a hole, and I would drive down the interstate thinking about veering left into a bridge. I had a lot of life insurance and got it in my head that everyone would be better with it plus I was exhausted mentally and in a deep depression. I went deeper down that hole and got to a point of it being inevitable. For whatever reason my thoughts shifted to how hard it would be for everyone I was connected to if I was gone (part of the reason I thought so much in a car because then it may not be as obvious) to things I could do to get out of it, etc and I got up and moved on and have never gone back down that road. It occasionally pops back in my head, but I’ve managed my way out of it. 

The whole thing is fairly simple really. For someone that can’t see the positive in being here and also believes that they are a burden to family, I have zero doubt the noise in their head can easily push them to a breaking point. Life has gotten harder, personal connections are disappearing, people are becoming more isolated and less part of a community, which leaves them to their own thoughts. If there is no sense of feeling needed or attachment, then it becomes a viable option and a solution to a problem. There is no easy solution to the problem though. 

[Guest]

13 hours ago, Celery Man said:

I think that regardless of what language and reasoning you use to explain why other people would be wrong to kill themselves, it's inconsequential because framing the argument better likely doesn't overwhelm the desire to not live misery for several more decades so that other people can be less sad.  It's not relevant to a potential suicide victim because the extent to which they would opt to continue to live in order to not devastate people around them is baked in from love, not a desire to behave morally.  The person who is thinking of killing himself probably already has a pretty low opinion of his value, pointing out moral shortcomings doesn't tilt things back the other direction.  And presumably things that are of significant consequence to the subject discussion = things that can cause people who may decide to kill themselves to instead not kill themselves.  To me, I think that comes down to how do we get people the help they need when they need it.  Which is tricky because different people need different help and it's difficult to know when they need it.  I feel like the best I can do is do things like say right now in this discussion to the theoretical suicidal surlster who may be reading that if you're clinically depressed and your world is entirely gray, you need some help and people will help you get it.  And you can have an astonishing recovery and experience real joy again in your life.

I'm not advocating that we should discuss the details of moral theory with someone who is already seriously contemplating suicide.  But why should we view the problem solely by considering what to do with individuals at this stage?  We would not do that for any other epidemic.  For example, it is often recommended to jog regularly to prevent excessive weight gain.  Is the response "well I'm not going to tell my 60 year old 300 lb diabetic grandma to start jogging" a valid objection against the promotion of jogging?  The point is that if grandma jogged more regularly at earlier stages in life, maybe she would not be 300 lb.  Likewise, maybe openly discussing and promoting arguments based in moral theory for why one ought not to kill himself could lead to a reduction in the number of people who get to the point that they are seriously contemplating suicide.  If folks genuinely do not know why a man ought to live and cannot give any satisfactory reasons to support this (and more and more people fall in this category; see poster XYZ in this thread), then what is preventing them from considering suicide as an option if they do not feel like continuing on?  And what is the rational basis for us trying to talk folks out of suicide if we cannot say that the action is impermissible?

Let's compare suicide to two others ethical questions that are seldom disputed:  the morality of drunk driving and racism.  One seldom hears arguments for the permissibility of drunk driving and racism.  Furthermore, these actions are typically considered shameful and are often openly shamed.  Do we wait for one to be drunk at a bar and reaching for the keys in his pocket before we discuss whether one ought to drive drunk?  Of course not; this message is hammered home frequently and long before this situation arises, as it should be.  If I were to say "I think the immorality of drunk driving should be emphasized in society and this could lead to a decrease in the rate of drunk driving" it would not be a valid objection to reply with "well a drunk person at 2 AM is not interested in discussing moral theory."  Another point of interest in this comparison is that we never consider the altered mental faculties of a drunk person as a moral justification for drunk driving; we would not consider a person who drives drunk and gets killed in an auto accident as a victim of drunk driving; for avowed racists we do not consider the environment that they were raised in nor the sociological conditions that they live in as moral justification for their racism.  But for suicide we are happy to provide equivalents to these reasons as justification.  

Corresponding with the consistent message preached throughout society on the immorality of drunk driving and racism, drunk driving rates have steadily decreased over the last 15 year and acts of overt racism are in decline (though neither of these things are eliminated).  On the other hand, the immorality of suicide is not consistently preached and is now openly argued against and suicide rates are on the rise.  Now maybe these things all just happen to be correlated and there is no causation between the events; but to me it seems at least plausible that these things are causally linked.  In whatever way it gets discussed, people's worldviews do effect their actions.   What a person believes someone ought to do has influence on what he actually does.  

 

5 hours ago, XYZ said:

Aphelion:

What bothers me about the points you are making on ethics is that you are bringing "baggage" into each of them, and by baggage I mean "should" statements that one is supposed to take at face value.

Virtue ethics:  This approach is based on the idea that a person should act in a way that is virtuous.

Deontological ethics:  Deontolgical approaches are based on the idea that we have certain duties that we are morally obligated to do.

Consequentialism:  Consequentialist theories are based on the idea that actions should be judged by their consequences and that one should do whatever maximizes the greatest good.

For each of those "shoulds", I have a question for you: why? And who decided that, and based on what?

The "baggage" you refer to is the basis for normative ethics.  Normative ethics is based on what one ought to do:

"Normative ethics is the study of ethical action. It is the branch of philosophical ethics that investigates the set of questions that arise when considering how one ought to act, morally speaking."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics

I did not come up with the vast subject of normative ethics nor did I develop virtue ethics, deontology, or consequentialism.  These are old & well-established theories of morality that have been developed and discussed by numerous thinkers spanning many centuries and cultures.  Now I am giving specific applications of these theories to the subject discussion, so the validity of these applications is certainly open for discussion and debate.  But accusing me of slipping in ought questions into an ethics discussion is like accusing one of slipping in numbers into a mathematics discussion.  

No one is saying you are to take the ought statements at face value.  Reasons are given for what one ought to do in general by the various theories.  I discussed these concepts and gave reasons why one ought not to commit suicide according to the various theories in my previous posts.  If you were to get an assignment for a class that said "give the fundamental reason why one ought to commit some action according to virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism" and "what reasons did Aphelion give for why one ought not to commit suicide according to virtue ethics and Kant's deontological theory based on the categorical imperative," do you think you could answer these questions and pass the assignment?  I am confident that you could if you expended just a little bit of effort.  So expend just a little bit of effort find the easily found answers.  

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Guest

[XYZ 2,154]

Aphelion:

You are saying if A then B, and you have explained sufficiently well why “if A then B”, so no need to explain that further. What I’m asking is why should anyone accept A?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Aphelion:

You are saying if A then B, and you have explained sufficiently well why “if A then B”, so no need to explain that further. What I’m asking is why should anyone accept A?

Are you asking why one should accept virtue ethics or Kant's moral philosophy?

[XYZ 2,154]

45 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

Are you asking why one should accept virtue ethics or Kant's moral philosophy?

Yes.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, XYZ said:

Yes.

I didn't give any argument for why one should accept either of these.  I said that I think suicide is immoral, you asked me why I thought that, and I responded by saying because I believe it follows both from virtue ethics and from Kant's moral philosophy based on the categorical imperative and that these are my two preferred approaches to ethics.  But I never claimed that you or anyone else should accept either of these approaches; that is not needed to answer the question of why I believe it is immoral.

I also gave an overview of the three major approaches within normative ethics and some discussion on how the question of the morality of suicide would be evaluated by each.  If you are going to argue that a man ought not kill himself or that it is permissible to do so, then this will be through some system of normative ethics by default as this is the subject that deals with what one ought to do.  So of the three major approaches within the entire discipline, for two of them I think that it can be clearly demonstrated that suicide is immoral and that within only one of them can arguments for the permissibility of suicide be reasonably constructed but that these arguments are dubious at best.  

So my general argument (as opposed to the answer to the specific question on the reasons for why I believe) on the immorality of suicide is not based on any particular system of ethics; I'm saying that regardless of which system one prefers, the arguments for the permissibility of suicide are flimsy.  Your best bet is with utilitarianism, but even with that I do not believe the arguments are satisfactory.  I think that strong arguments for the immorality of suicide can be given using any of the three approaches.

Now if you reject virtue ethics, deontology, and consequitialism, then you will have to reference some other basis for reasoning why someone ought or ought not commit an action and you can give an argument for the permissibility of suicide assuming that ethical approach.  But consistent and satisfactory moral theories are harder to construct than you might think.  Most perceived new attempts just reduce to consequentialism.  

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Guest

[Celery Man 20,970]

2 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I'm not advocating that we should discuss the details of moral theory with someone who is already seriously contemplating suicide.  But why should we view the problem solely by considering what to do with individuals at this stage?  We would not do that for any other epidemic.  For example, it is often recommended to jog regularly to prevent excessive weight gain.  Is the response "well I'm not going to tell my 60 year old 300 lb diabetic grandma to start jogging" a valid objection against the promotion of jogging?  The point is that if grandma jogged more regularly at earlier stages in life, maybe she would not be 300 lb.  Likewise, maybe openly discussing and promoting arguments based in moral theory for why one ought not to kill himself could lead to a reduction in the number of people who get to the point that they are seriously contemplating suicide.  If folks genuinely do not know why a man ought to live and cannot give any satisfactory reasons to support this (and more and more people fall in this category; see poster XYZ in this thread), then what is preventing them from considering suicide as an option if they do not feel like continuing on?  And what is the rational basis for us trying to talk folks out of suicide if we cannot say that the action is impermissible?

suicide isn’t the "jogging" in this analogy, it’s the being a 300 pound diabetic.  You're not talking about promoting jogging, you're talking about the immorality of being a 300 pound diabetic.

2 hours ago, Aphelion said:

Let's compare suicide to two others ethical questions that are seldom disputed:  the morality of drunk driving and racism. 

being suicidal is more complex than not wanting to pay for an uber, which is about as complex (at this point) as drunk driving is

2 hours ago, Aphelion said:

 If I were to say "I think the immorality of drunk driving should be emphasized in society and this could lead to a decrease in the rate of drunk driving" it would not be a valid objection to reply with "well a drunk person at 2 AM is not interested in discussing moral theory." 

yeah, but it would be valid to counter with a disagreement on your second point, that societally emphasizing the immorality of drunk driving will decrease the rate of drunk driving.  I don’t actually completely disagree with that in this case, but if we flip back to talking about suicide, I absolutely do.  And I don't think being suicidal is comparable to being racist.  Being racist is holding an immoral ethos, being suicidal is being mired in depression/desperation and seeing no hope of recovery.  Maybe there are other modes - maybe people who commit suicide rashly out of an "I'll show them" feeling could be approached differently, but I don't feel like I have any understanding of that mindset.  I still don't think that the "oh that would be immoral" approach would help here given that what they're doing is already implicitly immoral (revenge?), but maybe it's useful in this discussion to clarify that I'm pretty much talking about people who are massively depressed and see suicide as the only way to end their own suffering.

2 hours ago, Aphelion said:

Corresponding with the consistent message preached throughout society on the immorality of drunk driving and racism, drunk driving rates have steadily decreased over the last 15 year and acts of overt racism are in decline (though neither of these things are eliminated).  On the other hand, the immorality of suicide is not consistently preached and is now openly argued against and suicide rates are on the rise.  Now maybe these things all just happen to be correlated and there is no causation between the events; but to me it seems at least plausible that these things are causally linked.  In whatever way it gets discussed, people's worldviews do effect their actions.   What a person believes someone ought to do has influence on what he actually does.  

For your last point, I think that suicide is different than racism and drunk driving.  And more like being 300 pounds.  The solution to drunk driving is 1) having a convenient alternative (congrats society, we did it) and 2) enough shame that people would rather spend $15 on an uber than be called a piece of shit.  For racism, the less society accepts racism the less people engage in it, because social promotion of those ideas is where the fuck it comes from in the first place.  It’s complicated by the fact that there are real class and culture differences between races, but it’s a marathon not a sprint.

 

Suicide is being a 300 pound diabetic.  I think we should talk about jogging and the ways that diabetes can be cured (which in this instance, it can).  And in this instance calling the 300 pound diabetic immoral and bad just makes them pick up the sack of marshmallows cause that’s why they’re here in the first place.

An analogue to being suicidal that we do societally shame is being an alcoholic.  I think that shaming alcoholism is.... while it is not helpful to someone who is deep in practicing alcoholism, it probably does at the very least prevent some subset of the population from engaging in behaviors that spiral into full on alcohol abuse disorder.  The set of behaviors that precede alcohol abuse disorder (which many would argue are "early trouble signs" rather than "the cause" as it related to alcoholism) are a lot tidier to look at than suicide.  So, I don't think that shaming alcoholism is as completely pointless as shaming suicide, but I also do not think that it is an effective means of minimizing its impact or helping those in risk, beyond a very small subset which may be outweighed by the negative effects the shaming of it has on people who now need help to get out.  For instance, people who are suffering alcoholics but who are ashamed to admit it to their family and loved ones, and then never get the actual help they absolutely need to recover.

as long as I'm dissecting your post and we're having a bit of a back and forth, want to make sure that I'm saying this is a stimulating discussion for me and everything is intended as.... respectful disagreements not flinging shit or whatever

2 hours ago, Aphelion said:

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by Celery Man

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

Difficult to sort out mental illness versus spur of the moment though I guess they are tied, just not tightly.   In my file cabinet on my right as I type this I have a file labeled “Anna”.  She was my oldest sister, I have 2other sisters and a brother in between.  In that file is a judges decree declaring me as her guardian.  He demanded I take her car away and keep it in my possession and keep her out of trouble so she could stay out of jail.  I did that. Shortly after that decree she ate a bottle of pills and killed herself.   I couldn’t do a damned thing.  I tried.  

[XYZ 2,154]

4 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Difficult to sort out mental illness versus spur of the moment though I guess they are tied, just not tightly.   In my file cabinet on my right as I type this I have a file labeled “Anna”.  She was my oldest sister, I have 2other sisters and a brother in between.  In that file is a judges decree declaring me as her guardian.  He demanded I take her car away and keep it in my possession and keep her out of trouble so she could stay out of jail.  I did that. Shortly after that decree she ate a bottle of pills and killed herself.   I couldn’t do a damned thing.  I tried.  

Sorry to hear that.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

13 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Sorry to hear that.

It’s a lot more complicated than that yet it’s not.  To this day I wonder what if, but in the end, she called her own shot.  She left behind two kids and an ex husband who I’m proud to call my friend. Just a shitty situation.