Why is suicide considered a bad thing?

Immahnoob said:

That's a nice and logical explanation.

Please, tell us more.

FacelessVixen said:
The way I see it, why kill yourself when you can kill the fuckers that annoy you? At least, that's what I think when I'm feeling depressed to that point.

yhunata said:
Is it worth it?

Goryo said:


Kinda hard to answer that question, cause it's not really that difficult to kill yourself, and you wont suffer any of the consequences or fallout.

In the mind of a person who's going to commit suicide, I think the question of "is it worth it?" is directed at life, not death.

Goryo said:


Meh. If you commit murder, that's just another reason to commit suicide. Better than going to the slammer for the rest of your life.

Centillion said:
If someone gives you a present, will you relinquish it?

Ghostony said:
I actually know a guy who likes/desires absolute nothingness. He says he's never going to suicide though out of fear of the unknown results of death.

Centillion said:
If someone gives you a present, will you relinquish it? it's kinda dull, right?
a soul is a God present, and a precious one. and in that case it's not only dull but also stupid.

yhunata said:
If you're gonna commit suicide, you're gonna have to have a reason. They can be your family, your lover or your friends, but surely, it's not gonna be all of them. Thus, my asking, is it worth leaving the one who did not hurt you and just making the day for the one who did?

katsucats said:
Perhaps some things are more important than vengeance? That kind of false pride will get you nowhere in life. One should do what's best for himself instead of rubbing in the faces of his supposed enemies.

Lord_Joshua said:
ya cant pay taxes if ya commit suicide

thats the gov view of it

yhunata said:


You just reminded me of that one law in one of the states of the US. "The sentence for committing suicide is death".

yhunata said:
That's what I'm asking. Why should you make your enemy happy? Why not just get out of their life, while still keeping yours? Is that not an option? Again, I don't mind if people commit suicide, but is it really worth it? You get one life and you're gonna end it because someone hurt you? But yes, there are times where I consider suicide the right thing, though they are mostly military related.

katsucats said:
Why does it matter how your "enemies" feel?

yhunata said:
That's the point, ain't it? Why does your "enemy" matter to you? The things they do to hurt you is not a legitimate reason to commit suicide. You're simply succumbing and admitting you're a pathetic wimp and proving them to be the ones in the right by killing yourself.

OneHellOfAuser said:


Not everyone commits suicide or thinks about committing suicide because they've been bullied/have enemies.
Could be because they're lonely..the reasons people kill themelves for are endless.

johnkx said:


I'd be biased to say that suicide is bad because there are cases where suicide is the only option. I'd give examples but I'm sure you get the idea.

johnkx said:
However, people who can live a good life, yet they think their life sucks and want to commit suicide should just die and list as a donor.

johnkx said:
If you think about it, living life is pointless, yet it makes you think that its not. No one knows whats next after death. Religion says you go to places, science says you just stop existing. However, there are people out there trying to live but due to unfortunate circumstances they couldn't. So if you think about it, you win your life just like how you'd win a lottery. It's a one of a kind experience that will only happen once.

Just imagine being a single carbon in outer space, drifting to random planets and then suddenly you become a human - awesome isn't it?

tl;dr life is a one time experience, just live the way you want it to be - just don't be an asshole or a criminal.

katsucats said:
There's no objective goal to life, no objective valuation for our experiences. If someone makes his peace with death, then that's more than what could be said for most of us. In fact, aren't each of us constantly --even if it's subconsciously-- wrestling with our purpose? Someone finds it and we call him a coward. Yet we all die someday. Having a short one does not mean having a bad one.

ronri said:
Answer to Question: For one's body to function/live, one requires resources and continual sustenance and environmental forces. So why is suicide considered bad? Because you wasted any form of consumed resources and/or benefits you have attained (or "potentially" can by simply having existed in the first place) in the amount of time you've lived, all of which could've been better saved for someone else (in the eyes of other humans who desire in continually living until they are unable to do so).

katsucats said:
There's no objective goal to life, no objective valuation for our experiences. If someone makes his peace with death, then that's more than what could be said for most of us. In fact, aren't each of us constantly --even if it's subconsciously-- wrestling with our purpose? Someone finds it and we call him a coward. Yet we all die someday. Having a short one does not mean having a bad one.

katsucats said:
You could say this for anyone who has ever lived, since why bother living if you're going to die anyways? All the resources you've consumed are "wasted" regardless.

ronri said:
You're going under the notion that others will view said resources as being wasted because everyone will die anyway, all while disregarding the fact that others will view such resources as necessary or important to them, to keep them functioning until fatal circumstances.

It's not just the simple notion of "wasting" resources (as you've commonly pointed out in this thread and seem to have treated mine as such). Rather your willful action of removing yourself from this world in correlation with the resources you have attained in the time you've lived will cause those who wish to continually live until they are unable to do so to condemn you or feel bad about your case (again, if they're even aware about your existence).

You asked this yourself. Why bother living? Your answer: There's no objective point in life. Despite this, others may want to live out their lives until death in accordance to their own reasons whether or not they're aware of (or even care about) the ambiguity of the "point" of their life. Your time spent, what you have consumed in your lifetime, and what you could've gained are valuable to those who wish to continually live.

katsucats said:
Resources are used to sustain life for the time being. They can be likened to a Netflix subscription: you wouldn't say that your subscription fee was "wasted" because you decided to cancel. Those resources allowed you to live in the time that you consumed them. The first problem with your response is that you consider life lived to be valueless upon death (that is that the resources are considered wasted as soon as suicide is committed, but not before, even though if we freeze time the moment before suicide in 2 alternate worlds where suicide would and wouldn't have been committed respectively, the 2 existences would be identical for the resources consumed).

katsucats said:
Secondly, resources are not in any real shortage that one existence would starve another being. There is no conceivable metaphysical system where resources are somehow transferred to another person just because one person stops consuming them. Third, in a capitalistic economy, resources are traded with productivity; it is impossible that people consume without contributing something in return (usually money or work).

katsucats said:
How does someone's subjective experience (his time spent, energy consumed, etc.) become valuable to other people who live, whether their life is by choice or not? I don't see the relevance. Someone who chooses to live has no more right to condemn someone who chooses to die than someone who chooses to be a doctor has the right to condemn someone who chooses to be a researcher. A doctor might feel a researcher has "wasted" value by not directly helping people with their lives, but to condemn him for not maximizing some subjectively calculated utility is rather odd.

katsucats said:
In making this thread, I am very well aware that people view suicide in bad light -- it's in the thread title. Aside from this notion of "wasting" resources, you seem to reiterate the condemnation without an explanation.

TheAutocrat said:
There are two things you do not realize about mankind katsucats. Pessimism has long since clouded your wisdom.
For the first, survival is the goal of mankind. And absolute power in existence is our never-ending end.

TheAutocrat said:
On a less overarching and more grounded note, I believe a person's life does not belong to him/her, it belongs to society and the people. A person in his life should always seek to contribute to society in one way or another.

TheAutocrat said:
Suicide is the lowest of the low, it shows a complete failure to self-actualize, and brings unnecessary pain to others. The man who is overcome by emotions, fails to realize that emotions are just a means to an end, he get's entangled in the gift of despair that was bestowed upon him. In his blindness he fails to see the light at the other end. But this pain to others, what if that pain came at a time when they were actualizing their end, catastrophe could strike those who bled this unnecessary pain. And perhaps they would go on to become failures as well.

TheAutocrat said:
Now you didn't post this thread just to get a reason not to kill yourself did you?
If you need purpose and direction, let me give it to you!

ronri said:
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that life lived is valueless upon death through suicide. I said that those who desire life view the very notion of living as valuable to themselves due to the mere fact that it's what they believe in, thus the act of killing oneself is perceived (keyword) as throwing away one's existence. What is valued is what's gained and/or what could've been gained through that existence. The rest of your points will be answered in my following replies.

ronri said:
What you're doing is that you're trying to disprove people's mental subjectivity through objectivity. People are subjective by nature, people will believe what they choose to believe. In this regard, people who desire continual living would view death as an obstacle or contradiction to their desire.

ronri said:
That's the thing, it doesn't become valuable. It's all just perceptions based on an individual's mindset. People choose to perceive that life is valuable to them and that the concept of existence are valuable in of itself (irregardless of circumstances). People who desire the notion of living out their lives will view the notion of killing themselves as a direct contradiction their own mindset. I never addressed the notion of morality in regards to whether or not it's right or wrong to condemn others as my stance was neutral at its best, so I don't know why you even brought it up.

ronri said:
Saving this one for last. You seem to fail to grasp what I was even saying in the first place. Willful removal of one's existence is viewed negatively by those who desire the notion of living out their lives because it's a direct contradiction to their aforementioned mentality of continual living (THEIR mentality, meaning it is of their own perception that it's a bad/sad/negative thing because of their personal desire).

katsucats said:
You're right: I fail to understand how people committing suicide prevent you from living...

sippychao said:
Okay, just some background before I begin.

I live in an region of The Netherlands called: West Friesland.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Friesland_%28region%29)

In West Friesland 43% of teenagers between 12-16 are heavy alcohol users
(at least 5 drinks per occasion).
And a lot of them also do drugs (I don't have any numbers for those).

So this already changes my view on things quite a lot because most cases of suicide here are teenagers 12-20 that jump in front of trains passing by, most of the time because of depression or debts even their parents weren't aware of, likely leaving the train driver with at least a minor trauma.

One dad whose son had jumped in front of the train had filmed an documentary of witch the title literally translates into ''The Sorrow Of West Friesland'' in witch it became very clear that most parents in this region are actually scared that their kid might not come home one day, they were depressed or in great amounts of trouble, and they knew nothing about it. Can you blame them?

Now drugs and alcohol are pretty easy to acquire in The Netherlands since the legal age for beer is 16 and there is an coffee shop in town that just sells drugs.
Most people say: Just make the legal age higher! or make drugs illegal! but then there is the argument that says there is less crime because of that. Because you can just hire a prostitute in Amsterdam causes less rape issues?

A lot of people here think suicide is just a bad excuse for the easy way out.
Can't pay your debts any more? just kill yourself and your family will take care of it all, but that's not how it should be of course.

Goryo said:
The prospect of nothingness is better than something like hell (imo). You won't even be conscious or aware in "nothingness" so it's not like you'll be bored or driven insane by loneliness or something.

ronri said:
I'm just gonna assume that you weren't being sarcastic here because you still seemingly missed my point with this very last statement despite my initial assumption that you already got it in the above post in regards to your 2nd point about "consistency vs objectivity". Also, a lot of your newest post consisted on the same link between these two specific concepts so I thought it best to address that anyway.

For clarity, I'm referring to the notion of "others" committing suicide, in correlation with your ability to "live" (or rather how suicide supposedly "prevents" you from living). Simply put, it doesn't. It's the thought that drives a self-imposed perception of contradiction (caused either by empathy or more commonly sympathy) into such people's minds (possible or not), thus creating a negative emotional response within themselves. In turn, this negative emotion is simply channeled back towards the root cause (in the context of others condemning/feeling negatively towards suicide).

TheAutocrat said:
Suicide is the lowest of the low, it shows a complete failure to self-actualize, and brings unnecessary pain to others.

The man who is overcome by emotions, fails to realize that emotions are just a means to an end, he get's entangled in the gift of despair that was bestowed upon him.

In his blindness he fails to see the light at the other end.

But this pain to others, what if that pain came at a time when they were actualizing their end, catastrophe could strike those who bled this unnecessary pain.

And perhaps they would go on to become failures as well.

Day2Dream said:
Probably because it's considered weak. Death is the easy way out so if you kill yourself you're weak and no one likes weaklings.

Ghostony said:

But is it really weak to brave the unknown?

Ghostony said:

But is it really weak to brave the unknown?

yhunata said:


"Brave the unknown"? We don't know the future either, why not "brave" that instead? Why not have the "courage" to try to make the future better for yourself instead of "braving the unknown"? Suicide is just a weakling's excuse for being incapable of coping with their failures in life/relationships or incapability to stand up for themselves.

sippychao said:

Don't make it sound heroic, it's weak to just kill yourself so others will carry the burdens you left behind.

Maor said:


Lets say that i feel like life is pointless and want to die (purely hypothetically)

I leave no family behind and i have no debt or anything other than just not feeling like living, what burden am i leaving behind exactly? Your assuming every person that wants to kill himself is weak and kills himself to escape from some sort of hard situation, correct me if im wrong which i think i am but i think your argument is silly.

katsucats said:
All creatures die, so this delusion of status based on survival is a temporary glimpse with no lasting effect. Survival is not the goal of mankind. First of all, mankind isn't sentient; I mean individuals are sentient, but there isn't a singular transcended consciousness that belongs to all of mankind such that a singular goal could be attributed to it. Second, all goals are necessarily conditional lest they be random; I posit there is no such thing as a categorical imperative (despite Kant). You cannot prove what the goal of anyone should be because all scientific facts are descriptive, not prescriptive. It is impossible to derive what something should be from something that is.

katsucats said:
First of all, contribution to society is a rather vague concept where utility over time is nearly impossible to calculate a priori, meaning it is futile to claim to know how to work in benefit to society (whatever society means to begin with). Second, if you're a slave to society, then you should be spending your every waking moment trying to maximize your value, joining charity organizations and such. The weight of your value doesn't magically become relevant when suicide is considered.

katsucats said:
Emotions are not logical; they cannot be willfully manipulated to some end. Emotions are the ends. Indeed, we as humans spend entire lifetimes chasing after some feeling, idolizing pleasure and fleeing from pain and fear. To confuse pain with moral evil is to make a leap of faith and commit the naturalistic fallacy.

We do not live our everyday lives constantly in calculation of other people's feelings, so to forget this and condemn only people who suicide is being a hypocrite. Do you consider the value of your actions when you argue on the internet? Perhaps that scathing post criticizing another poster's views brought some minuscule unit of discomfort to his day, regardless of being correct or incorrect. You and I don't consider that the homeless would have his week made if only you gave him the paltry sum of $10 to buy a bottle of shit vodka. Nor do you consider that your inaction is causing people potential units of happiness, so you should be doing community service. If potential pain caused to others is the overriding arbiter of our actions, then a homosexual man shouldn't dare come out of the closet and potentially hurt his parents no matter how correct his actions are or how bigoted his parents are. If supporting society is always correct, then knowledge and truth means shit in light of homogeneity, and it would be morally wrong to challenge people of their beliefs.

There are consequences to every belief, and intellectual honesty require consistency. I must also ask you to define "unnecessary pain". When does pain become necessary, and what does it even mean for pain to be necessary?

sippychao said:


Let's be honest now, how often does that happen?
Please read the short story I wrote, you will come to find why that's my opinion.
(but yes if case that your highly unlikely situation actually is the case then I agree with you)

TheAutocrat said:
All creatures die. True, in an infinite space of time a vulnerable and mortal species would eventually come to an end thanks to the nature of probability, one way or another.
But the same can be said about probability the other way.

TheAutocrat said:
Absolute power in existence means that nothing poses a threat to us bar ourselves. But by that time our evolution and technological advancement would have reached a point that we would be completely unified, no exceptions, after all, that is logical.

G.E. Moore said:
If, for example, it is believed that whatever is pleasant is and must be good, or that whatever is good is and must be pleasant, or both, it is committing the naturalistic fallacy to infer from this that goodness and pleasantness are one and the same quality. The naturalistic fallacy is the assumption that because the words 'good' and, say, 'pleasant' necessarily describe the same objects, they must attribute the same quality to them.

TheAutocrat said:
Our journey to that power would mean overcoming many thin probabilities, but the probability still stands, it is still probable, no matter how small that probability, that we will survive until that end. When we are the universe and we won't kill ourselves, what will be left to kill us?

TheAutocrat said:
Whoever has power over mankind has the power to decide such a goal, and if it the most potent and strongest goal to begin with, it will become mankind's goal thereafter.

TheAutocrat said:
Extinction means non-existence, thus if there is a goal to be found, it will be found in survival.

TheAutocrat said:
Imagine that there was some true reality beyond our universe and to attain that truth we had to have enough power to break the illusion, imagine the possibilities beyond what we can conceptualize. Just because an answer is not apparent, visible or thinkable, does not mean it is non-existent, this is the limitation of human logic.

TheAutocrat said:
Only by surviving can we have a chance to gain further clues to this mystery. Imagine everyone thought like you katsucats, and we all killed ourselves if say we weren't so seduced by life and not cowardly. Think of how our mentality as a species has evolved, regressed, and transgressed over the years with regards to the positive notion that life has meaning. A notion we all inherited from our emotional seduction by this world. Years ago I bet not a soul could conceptualize all our mentalities and beliefs we hold today and we're still on planet earth, let alone explored the universe and the dimensions.

TheAutocrat said:
Again, whoever is in power enforces what is contribution to society and is the reason that goes unquestioned by all questioners, the greatest combined truth, making it objective.

TheAutocrat said:
Now about utility, if someone creates the hyper-jump for space-ships it will be a positive action regardless of if it fails and causes millions of deaths, even in that case the idea and creation would spark a successful invention over time, but if such contributions to mankind coincide with the goals of whoever is in power of man then it is successfully contributing to society regardless of negative consequence because we will always derive positive things from negativity. And unless it causes extinction of man it can be deemed a success by the same reason. Which is a small probability as such a chance of that happening with said potentially negative contribution would be scrutinized before-hand to the best of mankind's ability thus we appeal to probability and spin the roulette with very good odds, so to speak, making it a probable positive contribution nonetheless.

TheAutocrat said:
Ideally I'd have all the money and resources distributed across the globe evenly. If we are to become one nation, there will not be superior parts, or superior nations within a singular encapsulating nation, so to speak.

TheAutocrat said:
P.S -- I'm going to study deontology next, wonder what I'll think of that and what you think of that. I'll leave that for another time, though.

sippychao said:
Don't make it sound heroic, it's weak to just kill yourself so others will carry the burdens you left behind.

yhunata said:
"Brave the unknown"? We don't know the future either, why not "brave" that instead? Why not have the "courage" to try to make the future better for yourself instead of "braving the unknown"?

yhunata said:
Suicide is just a weakling's excuse for being incapable of coping with their failures in life/relationships or incapability to stand up for themselves.