Is suicide a selfish act?

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

see this doesn't make sense if this was the case the issue of changing laws and ethics wouldn't even matter if there was An absoulute morality laws and ethics wouldn't have needed to exist.

Sir, the accident may change but the substance remains. modifications of a law may exist but the substrate remains inviolable.

 

[oooog]

suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem

 

[PhazoN]

Sir, the accident may change but the substance remains. modifications of a law may exist but the substrate remains inviolable.

Still waiting for your reply. Where can we find the 'substrate'? I'm really curious...

 

[ZK]

Sir, the human race had always had distinction from what is right and wrong. law and ethics are but codifications of that distinction that arises from that consciousness of obligation to the sphere of morality, the perception of the consciousness of moral law is best explained on a transcendent ground and an author of the moral law. Do you have a beef with theism?

@ Bolded: Do explain that sentence to me in layman's terms. I'm having a hard time making sense of the 'consciousness of moral law' and how it's best explained on 'transcendent ground'. You're walking on the edge of a personification, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Furthemore; your terminology is unnecessarily complex, and that's not a compliment.

The human race has always abided to a certain set of rules and called some actions wrong and other actions right. What those actions were have changed drastically over time, as is shown clearly through times of slavery, massacres, etcetera.
You argue that there's a certain set of absolute moral values, but how do you support this claim? Humans have changed their laws and views on morality and ethics a thousand times over; who were right?

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Still waiting for your reply. Where can we find the 'substrate'? I'm really curious...

First we need to be clear that you know the terminologies I speak, you do know what a substance and an accident is?

 

[PhazoN]

First we need to be clear that you know the terminologies I speak, you do know what a substance and an accident is?

Yes, I do. So?

 

[Mihaelz]

You can never understand what things have to come to in order for someone to commit suicide. It's not being a coward. People who say suicide is a the same as being a coward have never been in that situation. Take psychology or better yet step back and see what they have been going through. Sure they are going to hell because it is a sin to take your own life but the thing is, all it takes to be someones hero is to stand up and help them and stop being a by standard. So really, are they a coward for being knocked down to the point they are unable to stand, or are we just selfish because we didn't take some time to help them stand back up. Life can hit you hard to the point you NEED help. They can try and try, but it gets them nowhere. I've been a victim of depression which is only the starting point but trust me, It's hell feeling so alone, thing is, the woman I'm with now is the one who decided to help me, and now we're engaged. That's how much someones life can change if you just give them some hope.

 

[Black Adam]

Anybody weak enough to go ahead and off themselves should do it to get your weak genes out the pool

 

[Prince Charles]

The ignorance is strong in this thread.

 

[ZK]

Anybody weak enough to go ahead and off themselves should do it to get your weak genes out the pool

Darwinism, wat r u doing? Darwinism staph!

 

[Two]

@ Bolded: Do explain that sentence to me in layman's terms. I'm having a hard time making sense of the 'consciousness of moral law' and how it's best explained on 'transcendent ground'. You're walking on the edge of a personification, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Furthemore; your terminology is unnecessarily complex, and that's not a compliment.

The human race has always abided to a certain set of rules and called some actions wrong and other actions right. What those actions were have changed drastically over time, as is shown clearly through times of slavery, massacres, etcetera.
You argue that there's a certain set of absolute moral values, but how do you support this claim? Humans have changed their laws and views on morality and ethics a thousand times over; who were right?

THANKYOUUUU!!!!

there cannot be one true moral, if this were the case there would still be colonies slave trade massacares racial and sexual oppression..People wouldn't be arguing about whether abortion as acceptable or not or whether a person who kills should get the death penalty..If Morality has changed over time there cannot be one true morality

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

@ Bolded: Do explain that sentence to me in layman's terms. I'm having a hard time making sense of the 'consciousness of moral law' and how it's best explained on 'transcendent ground'. You're walking on the edge of a personification, which is irrelevant to this discussion.
Furthemore; your terminology is unnecessarily complex, and that's not a compliment.

The human race has always abided to a certain set of rules and called some actions wrong and other actions right. What those actions were have changed drastically over time, as is shown clearly through times of slavery, massacres, etcetera.
You argue that there's a certain set of absolute moral values, but how do you support this claim? Humans have changed their laws and views on morality and ethics a thousand times over; who were right?

Personification? sir you misunderstand I am not arguing for the existence of a divine agent as the source of absolute morality. The agent itself is not the point but the existence of the absolute itself, Just because a group of people think that something is right like slavery does not make it so, why then is it universal to all cultures that is wrong to murder, to steal or to lie? they transcend all cultures and all ethics and yet you argue that there can be no absolutes?

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

Yes, I do. So?

Indulge me, what are they?

 

[PhazoN]

Indulge me, what are they?

How pathetic, cut the chase and answer the questions...or say something substancial yourself.

 

[ZK]

Personification? sir you misunderstand I am not arguing for the existence of a divine agent as the source of absolute morality. The agent itself is not the point but the existence of the absolute itself, Just because a group of people think that something is right like slavery does not make it so, why then is it universal to all cultures that is wrong to murder, to steal or to lie? they transcend all cultures and all ethics and yet you argue that there can be no absolutes?

It isn't. Capital punishment still exists in some nations. We still have Armies, and many support their actions. We murder professionally and justify the murders, but they're still murders.
And now you might say that murder is the 'unlawful' killing of another human being, but considering that you're arguing for the absolutes, we both know why that's not a valid argument.
Killing has long been a part of society. At one point it wasn't illegal to kill your slave, and at another point it wasn't illegal to kill in defense of your honor. Were these people wrong, from an ethic point of view? They didn't think so, and it was a universal trend.

 

[SIR HERDERP PRESIDERP SDO]

It isn't. Capital punishment still exists in some nations. We still have Armies, and many support their actions. We murder professionally and justify the murders, but they're still murders.
And now you might say that murder is the 'unlawful' killing of another human being, but considering that you're arguing for the absolutes, we both know why that's not a valid argument.
Killing has long been a part of society. At one point it wasn't illegal to kill your slave, and at another point it wasn't illegal to kill in defense of your honor. Were these people wrong, from an ethic point of view? They didn't think so, and it was a universal trend.

Sir, you are confusing concepts, murder is distinct from killing because it is unlawful killing because it involves malice. while "killing" in the strictest definition is to cause death you kill someone out of self-defense or by accident then it is not considered murder and therefore you did not violate the law. Capital punishment is not murder but killing by taking the life of the convicted criminal as the retribution of the law and the state for the offenses committed. You are confusing terms.

 

[Two]

Sir, you are confusing concepts, murder is distinct from killing because it is unlawful killing because it involves malice. while "killing" in the strictest definition is to cause death you kill someone out of self-defense or by accident then it is not considered murder and therefore you did not violate the law. Capital punishment is not murder but killing by taking the life of the convicted criminal as the retribution of the law for the offenses committed. You are confusing terms.

Right but at the end of the day a persons moral is unique to them and them alone everyone's sense of moral is a little different...for example if somebody slapped you, you may think it's fair to punch that person and that's about it..but if a person slapped me in the same way i may think that person deserves to be killed. Maybe everyones morality is the same in idea that we all know senseless killing is bad or whatever you are arguing, but it doesn't mean that every part of everybody's morality is the same or was the same in any time of humans existance, there never was one true morality and even the thought of that doesn't make sense each human is born differently with differences in the way we think and the way we do things we cannot all agree on even basic moral

It is impossible to prove that there is no one morality but you cannot disprove it either, however it is easy to disprove the fact that there is not a true/ absoulute morality.

 

[Typhon]

There actually is a basic set of morals all humans share and is most likely genetic. They've tested this by presenting the same scenarios to people across cultures and seeing what choices they would make and in certain circumstances almost everyone answers the same way.

 

[Anti]

I disagree with the ones in bold, especially with the rape part. Rape can be incredibly difficult to prove sometimes, and seriously, it can and most likely will fuck a person up for life. There's this weird social stigma going on with rape, making it hard for people (especially men) that have been raped to come out and say it, as if it's a mark of shame. Of course it mostly depends on where you live, but still, you're oversimplifying it way too much. Same with being abused at home. Kids who are abused get so mentally fucked up that they'd be too scared to do anything about it. You can't brush it off as if it's a matter of calling up the police >_>

As for being bullied at school, most of the times kids that get bullied don't tell their parents/administrators, because they either won't care or because the kid thinks it will make it worse. I do think being bullied in school is nothing to commit suicide over, but it depends on how bad you're being bullied, I suppose.



I never meant to imply otherwise. Nothing wrong with being selfish; it's their choice and I don't have any illusions about trying to stop them if they truly made up their mind. Some, usually teenagers, are too hasty with the decision though.

Well said.

 

[Hipster Madara]

Considering the response, I don't understand why people make such a big fuss about:

You must be registered for see images

Mainstream media distracting the stupid people from the world's real problems.

OT:
Most of the time.
Sometimes it can be accepted imo like veggie state or diseases or whole family killed or child abuse