What are some philosophical reasons not to commit suicide?

Question

What are some philosophical reasons not to commit suicide?

Sociobiology teaches that a certain set of egotistical, selfish values remain with us from antiquity and will continue to be cavemen. Certainly the insanity of this Second Great Depression seems to confirm the selfish war of all against war that hides behind the facade of law, civilization and morality. Society today accepts the idea of an evil human nature it is often used as the argument of why communism wont work. That human beings are greedy sex hungry monstrosities. That each individual is worse than a Stalin.

How can the infinite pains of life be justified in comparison to the calm serenity of nonexistence? Has any man in history lived a life so blessed as to outweigh the pleasures of endless dreamless sleep? Is not man's greatest sin to have been born? What duty is there to continue to live? We did not choose to be born.

Why pass on genes, and sentence another generation to hell for the selfish pleasure of sexual desire?

Schopenhauer said we were in the worst of all possible worlds. If any worst it could not exist as mass suicide would follow. Instead an irrational will to live which we could not control forces us to go on with our wretched lives until we commit the sin of parenthood and sentence another generation to the hell of existance. Sex is the tool the WIll uses to ensure the survival of this hell. Sociobiology like Eo Wilson, Dawkin's Selfish Gene or Riley's The Red Queen all agree that a brutal rapist sexuality is at the root of "human nature".

So if there is no rational reason for living, and if one rejects the values of sociobiology and the times, then what is the philosophical argument against suicide?

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

Thank you for being an intelligent and rational person. These are the arguments I have used, though not so eloquently, for years. Why should someone who is not happy with life continue because 'society' says we must.

Leave life to those who are so blissful and let those who don't want to play the game quit without guilt. Leave life to those who can muster the hope that things will get better. There are many who cannot, despite desperate efforts, achieve a reasonable fulfillment of Maslow's Hierarchy. Without connection, safety, expression and the faith in one's capability to achieve and survive then the justification for leaving the game is more rational than irrational, isn't it?

The graphic depictions of hell seen in paintings and taught in schools, as I recall, began in the time of Michelangelo. The Bible does not describe hell in this manner. "The meek shall inherit the earth" was purchased by the landed and lorded to keep the masses from rebellion. The Turn-of-the-Century Barons of railroads, the press, etc, paid the pulpit to preach "The Protestant Work Ethic". The church is a political and financial machine that manipulates its followers as long as it fits the church's will.

If someone commits suicide, they can no longer tithe, make purchases for the economy or pay taxes. The sinner has stopped contributing to the masses. Perhaps the contribution the departed makes is one that you mention above, mass suicide. Others might start to think that it really isn't such a bad idea. For instance, if a number of music and Hollywood stars committed suicide, would there be a rash of deaths? An interesting thought since so many credit these people with power and insight. The powers that be would certainly quake.

Reports of the frequency of suicide since the downturn in the economy have not made the news and it hasn't been easy to find the stastics on the net. Is there a concern that publishing the data will tarnish the taboo?

The only philosophical argument against suicide is that there isn't one.


I would like to exchange more on this subject if you wish to continue. If so, please respond. I will check some references for further exchange.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

good

Answer 2

Well, they got you there if you're religious. It will blow your chances for getting into heaven.

If you're not religious it becomes a little more problematic. Clearly, many people commit suicide worldwide every day. The philosophical argument I would pose is that, since I don't believe in an afterlife, this is your only chance in all of time to exist. It isn't that long a stay. It makes absolutely no sense to shorten it. Even if you're miserable, at least you're alive.

Yes, why pass on genes and sentence another generation to misery? Or worse, if you're religious, you actually become responsible for potentially making it possible for yet another soul to be tortured for eternity. Which flies in the face of the "be fruitful and multiply" dicta. All those tortured and twisted souls in hell going, "thanks a lot mom and dad."

I will enjoy the calm serenity of non-existence. Well, I would enjoy it if I were around to do so. But at least I wouldn't have to get up and go to work anymore.

Answer 3

i do not know any thing about the thing that you have sent me to answer for you but thank you for all you have whith to to do that for somone like that

Source(s):

that is all i am going to say about the thing that you have send me to answer for you thank you a lot thak you

Answer 4

You know what.... I think like this sometimes too.

I agree that there is no ultimate or rational reason for living... aside from (as Dawkins said) to propogate our genes as successfully as possible. And even this is not a 'rational' reason.... if anything it is the weirdest and most pointless reason!

As for Schopenhauer, while I agree with what he said about life being essentially meaningless, I do not agree with him saying that we should give up on this world and on life, just because there is no ultimate reason behind it all. This was just his own personal interpretation of things... and we do not have to agree with it.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche, who often agreed with a lot of what Schopenhauer said, disagreed with him on this aspect. Nietzsche said: yes life IS for the large part pointless and filled with suffering and needless striving but, it is the one life we get... there is no God, God is dead, we do not have immortal souls which live on after death... therefore we should live this one life we get to the full and get as much as we can out of it.

What you have to do is find you own philosophy on life. Yes, Dawkins and Schopenhaeur made excellent and honest points, but THEIR interpretations of the world shouldn't have to be the be-all and end-all of YOUR life. THEIR reality needn't be YOUR reality.

YOU have control over YOUR life and therefore can make of it whatever you want to! Personally, I think the world is totally fascinating and just live to learn as much as I can about it. I live for being around people who I love and care about, and people who love and care about me. I also don't agree with bringing children into the world, precisely for the reasons you said, which is why I don't want to have children. This in itself shows that, while we humans are essentially living for propogating our genes, this does not mean we have no control over this basic need of ours. We have the control and the power to overcome our most primitive instincts, and to live our lives the way WE want to, not the way our primitive instincts want us to...