About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page


Post 80

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
You missed the one with the chocolate bunny sticking head in oven....;-)



Post 81

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 5:21pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Yes, Hong, very much so, thanks.

===

As to what I want to argue? That there is not and cannot be a right to suicide per se under Rand's ethics. That you don't need a right to commit suicide anyway - you just need the means and the will, and in a free society, how could anyone stop you? That requiring a failed suicide to prove he is not a threat to society at trial is not so terrible an idea, and that, if suicide were a capital crime, under what circumstances could the suicide, were he sentenced to death, complain the he wasn't getting exactly what he asked for? For those who're familiar with the concept, I'm not arguing for prior restraint.

Ted



Post 82

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:05amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
LOL, Hong



Post 83

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 10:04pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Hong, these are hilarious! OMG!

- Bill



Post 84

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Yeah, my son discovered them in the library and giggled non-stop. Not sure that I should laugh with him or worry about him...



Post 85

Thursday, June 14, 2007 - 3:50pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Nantucket 'Killer was Suicidal'

A drunken Wall Street banker was talked out of jumping to his death two days before he stabbed his millionaire ex-girlfriend to death in Nantucket in a lovesick rage, a friend testified yesterday.

By Jack Coleman in Nantucket, Mass.,
and Cynthia R. Fagen in New York

June 14, 2007, NY Post



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 86

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ted, I missed this thread the first time through. I want to make a few comments. I know the thread has died down, so if you don't want to participate, you're not obligated and it won't imply agreement or anything.

1.) There's no reason to make suicide itself illegal even given your examples. If someone acts in a way that endangers the lives of others, that should be the punishable crime. The suicide itself is irrelevant. It's like driving recklessly. It's the fact that you're endangering others that is the criminal act, not that you're driving. By focusing on the non-essential part, the suicide (or driving), you only distract from the real crime. Other similar examples include drug users who steal or are violent (outlawing drug use) or racists who murder or assault (outlawing "hate"). In other words, others-endangering suicide should not be illegal because it's suicide, but because it's endangering.

2.) I think all of this is perfectly consistent with a right to suicide. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't open the door to endangering others. If you're arguing against a right to suicide that includes the right to kill or endanger others in the process, I think most of us would agree that there is no such right. But not because there isn't a right to suicide. Only because your freedom of action is restricted to not initiating force against others. So if the argument were as simple as saying that because someone was trying to commit suicide, it doesn't excuse their actions or shield them from the consequences, there would be little disagreement here.

3.) You asked "I said that there is no such thing as a right to suicide per se. Does anyone deny it?" I deny it. Unless the "per se" is supposed to have some deeper meaning. I think it fits under any other freedom of action you have.

There may be a few points of disagreement that lead us to different conclusions.

First, I don't think rights only extend to those actions that further your life. If they did, we could violate a person's rights anytime we thought they were acting self-destructively. I think the idea of rights must extend to any action that doesn't violate the rights of others. You have to be allowed to make any choices. Suicide is just another one of these actions.

Another potential disagreement (which I have with many people) is whether or not suicide is an abandonment of life or not. Certainly the obvious line of reasoning would say that since it ends your life, you're no longer "choosing life", and so morality doesn't apply. But I disagree.

The people who attempt suicide that I'm familiar with do it out of a strong sense of value. If they lose someone, it's the strength of their love (value) that makes them feel so much pain. They try to stop that pain (or reach out for help). The means by which they do it seems the most effective, but they're not acting rationally. They're acting emotionally. Understandable. But it's not that they've given up on life or given up on values. They still want happiness and love and everything else. And they want the pain to stop. Their means are simply wrong. They're short-sighted.

In other cases, like an old man who is suffering greatly, he recognizes that he has very few actions left he can take. And life is a process. It consists of the actions we take, not just the simple state of not being dead. The old man who chooses to pursue his final values, either to stop the suffering, or to make sure his family isn't crippled by the hospital bills, is making the only value-directed actions he can take. This isn't a man who is no longer choosing life, it's a man who is actively choosing life, and choosing to live the last little bit by choosing his values and pursuing them with everything he has left.

In contrast, the man who actually doesn't choose life is the man who gives up on all values. Nothing is important. A suicide there is just completing the process. It doesn't matter to him if he takes the lives of others, or act in any other heinous way. He's no longer value-directed. Without the choice to live, values lose their meaning. Finishing off that kind of person is anti-climactic. For me, the part at the end of Atlas Shrugged, where Dagny kills the guard, reminds me of this. The man who won't even step out of the way of the gun.

Given this understanding of suicide, I absolutely do believe that suicide is a right like any other. It's a freedom of action to pursue your values. If life is more than just continuing to breathe, and is in fact a process of goal-directed action, I think there's no reason to think suicide wouldn't be covered by the principle of rights.

That being said, I think there is an argument to be made that the overly emotional people, when they try to commit suicide, can by properly prevented. I'm thinking of teenage girls who decide to kill themselves since a boy they like dumped them. The argument would be that they're not in a state of mind to make that kind of decision. Absolutely stop them. Just as if a sleep-walker is walking out into traffic. Or if someone who had too much to drink decides to go for a joyride.




Post 87

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 3:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
I think there is an argument to be made that the overly emotional people, when they try to commit suicide, can by properly prevented. I'm thinking of teenage girls who decide to kill themselves since a boy they like dumped them. The argument would be that they're not in a state of mind to make that kind of decision. Absolutely stop them.

And yet - would that be considered as interfering with a normal Darwinian process,  culling unfit?




Post 88

Friday, June 15, 2007 - 6:22pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
First, no.

Second, who cares?



Post 89

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 2:04amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Speaking of suicide (what a subject!), I've known five people who've done it, including two Objectivists. I sometimes wonder if I'm unique in this respect, or if suicide is this common.

Of the Objectivists, one was a young 27-year old man whom I met through the Objectivist lectures who was currently attending law school, and seemed quite self-confident, almost cocky in basic attitude and personality. He was the scion of wealthy Jewish family, whose father owned a chain of stores, and was evidently expected to become a successful lawyer. But he flunked out of law school, and at the same time contracted testicular cancer, which he survived, minus a testicle. These two events evidently took its toll on him psychologically. His failure at school and the disgrace he evidently felt in the eyes of his family for flunking out of law school were probably the most devastating to him, but the cancer and the resulting disfigurement may also have played a role in depressing his self-esteem. I could see him deteriorate psychologically in the most dramatic fashion right before my eyes. It was an amazing thing to witness. He went from being arrogant, to being so officious and needy that when I saw him, I just wanted to get away from him. I eventually learned from his girlfriend that he blew his brains out with a gun.

The other Objectivist was a guy who was gay, but who thought that because Ayn Rand disapproved of homosexuality, he was basically an immoral person. I tried to tell him that Rand was wrong about that, but he was too convinced that she was right to listen to me. He didn't seem very happy, and eventually sought the counsel of a psychotherapist. From what I was told, the psychotherapy exposed disturbing aspects of his life that he had trouble accepting, and when I saw him a couple of years later, I observed a marked change in his personality. He had become paranoid, suspicious and almost delusional, believing that spiritual forces were communicating with him and that other people were the agents of these forces. I learned eventually that he had jumped in front of a subway train and had died five days later in the hospital.

The third victim was an attractive, 21-year old woman, who worked at a health-food store just down the street from where I lived. Unlike the two Objectivists, she seemed normal and psychologically healthy. There was no indication whatsoever that she was depressed or suicidal. One day when I entered the store and didn't see her, I asked the proprietor if she was still working there. He told me that she'd committed suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge on the day following her 21st birthday. The police had seen her wandering aimlessly in the streets at 2 AM that morning after her birthday party. They picked up her and questioned her, but couldn't hold her. She called into the store the next day at 10 AM and said that she would be late for work. At 1:00 PM, she jumped from the bridge and almost hit a boat operated by a friend of one of my co-workers. I later learned that both her parents had suffered from depression, and that she felt neglected by them.

The fourth suicide was someone I knew only through an acquaintance but had never met. He hung himself in a doorway with a note pinned to him, so that his wife would see him when she opened the door. This was clearly a vindictive and malicious act designed to shock and horrify her, not simply an attempt to escape from an unbearable existence.

The fifth suicide was a 10-year old boy who hung himself from a tree in a park that I used to frequent when I was a kid. He fashioned a noose from some rope which he tied to a tree; he then apparently got up on his bike and kicked it over. Childhood suicides are especially disturbing. Who knows what awful experiences caused this poor kid to end his own life at such a young age?!

None of these suicides involved sleeping pills or drugs. They were all, in one way or another, dramatic and violent acts. What's interesting is that of the five, four were male and only one, female. If I'm not mistaken, suicide is more common among women than among men. Also, with the exception of the 10-year old, these were all young adults.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/16, 2:07am)




Post 90

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 1:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bill, I've heard that women attempt suicide more, but that men actually succeed more often.  From my own experience or second hand, most of the attempts were women.  One guy in college did try, and did succeed by tying a rope around his neck and tying the other end to a bridge and jumping off.  Guys attempts tend to be more violent and effective.  At my college, there seemed to be frequent attempts at suicide.  When I was a desk attendant, I had to let in the paramedics so they could rush in and save one girl (I think overdose, and that she survived, since it was never talked about publically after that).  I've had multiple friends have to call the police because they had late night calls from girls who have had taken medication of some sort and were calling to say goodbye.

In the examples I gave in my post above, I talked about the old man who's making an arguably rational choice, and the young girl who's making a very temporary irrational choice.  From those suicide attempts I know of first or second hand, most were temporary bouts of depression, or young people (college students) going through some crisis of identity (which I think they would have gotten over eventually).  Some of your examples sound different, like if the suicide had been prevented, it would have probably happened eventually.

I've also known people I suspected would one day commit suicide.  The choices they were making, the view of life they were adopting, put them on a spiral towards depression and lack of hope.  It's like you were saying about how you could see the change in a person before your own eyes.  I think I managed to knock one of these out of that spiral pattern, and she's much better.  Not so lucky with others.  One thing I've noticed is someone can work themselves into this spiral by trying to act towards some ideal that really isn't very good, but they're convinced is.  One girl has a particular career path in mind, but it's absolutely torture for her.  The further she goes along, the more depressed and less hope she has.  She gets desperate in every other part of her life, looking for some magical cure for her self-induced miserable life.  And that just creates further problems, leading her to explicily adopt a malevolent universe view.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 91

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 2:12pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Women attempt suicide 3 times as often as men; men commit suicide 4 times as often as women. Men are 12 times as efficient? 12 times as serious?



Post 92

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 4:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Joe, I think I'd just end up repeating my points.

Suicides are dangerous.

No right to suicide is necessary in order to live. Rights are the political principles necessary to man's life in a social context. Under Objectivism one may choose suicide - but there is no right to suicide per se. Suicide may sometimes be preferable to suffering - and I have no problem with people choosing this option. But again, no specific right is necessary. In a free society, the right to own a gun, to possess lethal drugs and poisons and so forth are not in question. If you commit suicide and succeed, you are beyond punishment. If you fail - I want you to prove to me (i.e., a judge) why you are not a danger to society.

As for making suicide a capital crime, of course it is outlandish, and probably unfeasible - except consider again the cases I mentioned above. And again, if suicide were a capital crime, on what grounds could the suicide object?

Ted



Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 93

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 4:29pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
If you fail - I want you to prove to me (i.e., a judge) why you are not a danger to society.
Guilty until proven innocent?



Post 94

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ted, driving is dangerous!  Anyone who does it should be locked away, or have to prove that they'll never accidently harm someone!  (Dean is right...it is guilty until proven innocent).

I just don't understand why you would try to make the ridiculous claim that suicide is dangerous when only some forms are.  It's so easy to come up with other examples of activities that sometimes have dangerous forms.  Dangerous driving.  Dangerous sports.  Dangerous sex.  Dangerous manufacturing.  Dangerous mining.  Dangerous hunting.  There is even dangerous drinking of water!  Why not ban every possible activity?

The proper approach is to say that endangering other people should be illegal.  If you think the criminal part is endangering other people, that is what the law should cover.  And the law shouldn't care whether you're were endangering others while attempting suicide or while driving.  By claiming all suicide should be illegal, you're not basing it on any danger anymore.  You're arguing by a non-essential.

I also disagree that rights only apply to those things that others deem are necessary for you to live.  If the government banned dancing, sports, video games, twinkies, sex without procreation, alcohol, or posting on the internet, your argument (if true) would equally apply to why they should be allowed to.  Our rights allow us to do anything we want with our lives, as long as we don't violate those of others.  We don't need to justify our actions to others.  That's what freedom is all about.  They have no right to interfere with our lives, even with our attempts to end it.




Post 95

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 7:41pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Dean, that's nonsense and you know it, or at least you should. If a person tries to commit suicide and is arrested or hospitalized they face some sort of evaluation depending on the local law. I said nothing about "guilt" - only that an overt act is already subject to some sort of hearing of competency or determination of safety. Are you saying that the system the way it is now is too harsh on people who may be a danger to themselves and others? Are you saying that under libertarian principles the VT killer should not even have undergone the psychological evaluation that he did?

Joe, the driving analogy doesn't work, people don't take up driving because they are desperate and don't care about their own lives any more. Likewise, dancing, drinking, etc., are all subsumed under the rights of free association, to own property, etc. These rights also protect your ability to procure items which you may use to commit suicide. Rights constrain the government for punishing you for having danced. What right is needed to constrain the government for punishing you for having committed suicide?

Also, I didn't say that suicide is dangerous - I said that the suicide (i.e., the suicidal person) is dangerous. Frankly, to claim that suicide is not dangerous is a bit strange - but I know what you meant to say. I wish people would do the same for me, rather than jumping on what I haven't said. I suggest that if you reread what I have said, and read Man's Rights, you will see that it is not necessary to claim that there is a right to suicide, nor does it make sense to do so in an Objectivist context. Rand purportedly said that she hoped kittens have rights - but she didn't pretend that they do under her system. I'm not arguing that people can't or shouldn't kill themselves, and I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have compassion for some people who wish to or try to do so.

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 6/16, 7:43pm)




Post 96

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 9:08pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ted, you talk about rights as if there are only a handful.  A right of association.  A right of speech.  A right to property.  I don't think that's correct.  These are mere instances of your overall right to live.  They are identified examples of morally proper liberty, with the intent of clarifying when our liberty has been infringed.  This talk of a "right to suicide" is really just freedom of action.  We can identify it in a distinct way, as we have with freedom of press, freedom of speech, etc.  But we'd only need to do that if we had some group of people claiming that they have the right to interfere in our lives to prevent actions they don't approve of.  In other words, it's because you feel the need to interfere in the lives of others that we have to talk about a right to suicide.  But fundamentally, it's no different from every other right to be left alone.

If you think that our rights are few and enumerated, and otherwise we're able to use violence against each other to get our way, you have to try to justify it.  You can't just assert that it's okay because there is no right to suicide.  Or there is no right to dancing.  Or whatever.  If you're going to use force against another human being, you can't just claim that they have no right to act in that way.  They do.  Unless they violate your rights, you have no moral justification to go and arrest them, kill them, or otherwise initiate force against them.  Those are violations of rights.  And if they didn't violate the rights of someone else, you are initiating force.
What right is needed to constrain the government for punishing you for having committed suicide?
This sentence highlights the problem.  You assume the right of the government to go and punish, even kill other people, who have not initiated force against anyone.  I don't need to assert a right to suicide to challenge this.  The government, and anybody else, has absolutely no right to initiate force against anyone.  Period.  Nobody needs to justify their own actions, or try to defend it by saying they have a right to a particular action.  I could ask you to go read Man's Rights again, but if you're able to get this view that government can do anything it's not disallowed to do, I don't know that it will help.

While this is a crucial issue, you still haven't addressed the fact that it is the endangering of other people that is properly outlawed, not the suicide itself.  From this last post, you didn't even focus on whether the attempt to suicide is actually dangerous.  It looks like you don't actually care if the suicide (the act) endangers anyone else.  You want to ban it (or punish it with death), and you are justifying your initiation of force by claiming they had no right to attempt suicide.  So which is it, Ted?  Do you want to kill them because they're endangering others?  Or do you want to kill them because you don't like suicide and you think you found a loophole in the concept of rights that will let you do it?

And finally, I still think Dean is right.  You said "I want you to prove to me (i.e., a judge) why you are not a danger to society."  Of course you know, we have innocent until proven guilty as a principle to highlight the fact that it would be the government's job to prove that you are a danger to society.  If the defendant has to prove that he won't be, it's an impossible standard to meet.  And thus, as Dean said, you've promoted a "guilty until proven innocent" standard.




Post 97

Saturday, June 16, 2007 - 10:10pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Joe, you're not getting me at all. Perhaps this is a better way to put it:

You can commit suicide in private, and without the knowledge of any other party. If you succeed, you are dead. Case closed. If you fail, and no other party is involved, then no problem, change your mind, or try, try again.

But if you attempt suicide in public and fail (if you succeed, again, case closed) then you have committed a disorderly act which places burdens on others - the police or first responders to assist you, perhaps at their own risk, the courts or authorities to determine if you are a risk to society. This is not a private free act, it is at least a burden on others which you have no right to impose on them. At this point you have made yourself the equivalent of a dangerous beast, a subject for the men in white jackets, if not the dog-catcher. You will be brought before some authority, and will be held at least for observation, because through your recklessness, stupidity, desperation, foolishness or expectation of sympathy, you expect others to be there to clean up your mess after you. In this case, you are committing a misdemeanor at least. And the state will rightfully remand you to psychiatric custody or perhaps sentence you to some time in jail or both.

Now, can you tell the judge, it's a free country, don't lock me up for threatening to leap from a balcony? Can you get a pass? Of course not. Perhaps we need not actually charge the attempted suicide with attempted suicide, we could charge him with reckless endangerment or the like. But the would-be suicide cannot claim any "right to commit suicide" as his defense. And it would be remiss in its duties for the court not to take into account that a suicide is prima facie a danger to himself and others.

As for enumerated rights, that's a straw man or a misconstrual of my argument. I am a minarchist and I belive that (except for a few flaws that should be addressed through constitutional means) the Constitution is a valid and incredibly well constructed basis for law. I do not think that the Constitution "gives us rights" but that it recognizes our basic rights of liberty person and property and that it enumerates certain rights only because those rights were ones that had been subject to abuse under the Monarchy.

When I write an argument, I not only assume Objectivist principles (except where I explicitly differ with them) I also accept common law, current practice, and valid tradition, except again where I explicitly differ with it. I also expect others to be familiar with established concepts and current practices when relevant. I am not an anarchist or an armchair speculator who thinks that a cursory familiarity with Rand makes me an expert in the law. I know the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution and what they stand for.

And I also know that while you have the right to own the means to end your life, and the freedom to act as you see fit, to argue for a right to suicide per se is not justified by the Objectivist theory of rights as based on the needs of man's life. To argue that one has a right to kill oneself is like arguing that one has the right to age, the right to become ill, or the right to die - it is beside the point. In a free society there is no need for a right to kill oneself. If one wishes, one simply does it.

If this seems grouchy or sloppy, my apologies, I am falling asleep as I write.

Ted Keer



Post 98

Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 5:02amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Men are 12 times as efficient? 12 times as serious?

... about quitting? 12 times more likely to surrender, to give up?

12 times more likely to be driven to it by the insane demands of their mate?

12 times more likely to say, "I've been kicked in the Boys enough?"

12 times more likely to have been asked to do too much?

God I hate statistics.  He who gets to pose them paints them. 

Want to really screw 'em up?  Pour the 'quintile'numbers into a blender...

Happy Father's Day!

regards,
Fred




 




Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 99

Sunday, June 17, 2007 - 9:14amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ted,

You say that one can commit suicide in private, without the knowledge of any other party. So, physician-assisted suicide should be against the law, I take it. Also, you say
that while you have the right to own the means to end your life, and the freedom to act as you see fit, to argue for a right to suicide per se is not justified by the Objectivist theory of rights as based on the needs of man's life. To argue that one has a right to kill oneself is like arguing that one has the right to age, the right to become ill, or the right to die - it is beside the point. In a free society there is no need for a right to kill oneself. If one wishes, one simply does it.
I don't think this is correct. Of course, if you succeed, no sanctions can be imposed on you -- you're dead. But your argument is apparently that if you fail, you should be penalized for attempting suicide, which I don't think is consistent with Objectivism.

Arguing for a right to suicide is not like arguing for the right to age, to become ill, etc. Aging and illness are not choices. Suicide is. And you do have a right to attempt it under the proper circumstances (where you're not endangering others or imposing unwarranted obligations on them). According to Objectivism, a right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning one's freedom of action in a social context. The right to suicide is a special case of the right to freedom of action.

Moreover, I don't think that Rand would consider suicide under the proper circumstances to be at odds with her concept of the right to life. Recall her description in Atlas Shrugged, of Cherryl Brooks' committing suicide "with full consciousness of acting in self-preservation." (p. 908) While this is admittedly a paradoxical characterization of a suicide, what Rand is referring to there is presumably Brooks' right to live her life in a manner that was tolerable to her. It was that that Brooks was "preserving" by not allowing it to continue under circumstances that were unbearable and insufferable. Rand clearly recognized a right to commit suicide. So, if I understand you correctly, I don't think your position is consistent with Objectivism's.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/17, 9:44am)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/17, 10:38am)




Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.