Suicidal Chinese Man Pushed Over Edge

[Aramike]

This is an interesting story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521379,00.html?test=latestnews

From the article: Chen Fuchao, a man heavily in debt, had been contemplating suicide on a bridge in southern China for hours when a passer-by came up, shook his hand — and pushed him off the ledge.

Also from the article: I pushed him off because jumpers like Chen are very selfish. Their action violates a lot of public interest," Lai was quoted as saying by Xinhua. "They do not really dare to kill themselves. Instead, they just want to raise the relevant government authorities' attention to their appeals."

Okay, clearly pushing the man over the edge is not the "right" thing to do. However, this begs the question: did the man pushing the suicidal man do anything wrong? Think about: if the suicidal man is truly suicidal, wouldn't the result be a foregone conclusion, anyway? If not, then is the man truly suicidal, or rather is he simply seeking attention?

Please share your thoughts. I have my own, but I'd like to see the conversation shape itself without my initial leanings.

[Arclight]

My initial thought is that it's similar to assisted suicide. Not a "bad" thing to do IMO, if the person truly wishes it to be that way, but whether or not this was the case is impossible to determine in this scenario.

If the person was in fact going to jump, and assisted suicide is allowed by law, I don't think the guy who pushed the other did anything wrong.

Still, pretty bizarre story. :-?

[AngusJS]

Traffic around the Haizhu bridge in the city of Guangzhou had been backed up for five hours and police had cordoned off the area.That's all the justification the guy needed. Let him go! :)

The "jumper" only fell 26 feet. He probably spent all that time trying to think of a higher point to leap from. He's in Guangzhou. Why didn't he jump off a skyscraper?

But seriously, the jumper is the only one who knows if he's suicidal or not, and especially as he was injured in the fall, the guy who pushed him should be punished.

[Platapus]

Where in the dreary capitol of our nation, there is a bridge called the Wilson bridge. Naturally this is a chokepoint for the crappy traffic we have to endure here.

A few years ago, this jerk was standing on the Wilson bridge and threatening suicide. Unfortunately he did not follow through with his threats.

For some reason still not understood, the law enforcement people decided it was necessary to block off all six lanes of this bridge while this jerk was vacillating. This F-ed up traffic for hours.

I am sure there were many many commuters who would have gladly pushed this jerk off and gotten it over with. Drivers were calling up radio stations to vent about this.

I think when the police were able to pull him off the edge, they had to put him in immediate protective custody as he was immediately one of the most hated people in the DC area.

[JALU3]

I for one am not a supporter of "assisted suicide". There are plenty of ways to kill yourself, by yourself, without the need of others help.

If there is a Jumper, say off the Coronado Bridge, I can understand restricting one lane of traffic, like they do for road repair, or what not, but all lanes is a bit over the top IMHO.
Now if it were to be a high rise, clear the area below, least someone be walking by and get hit with a body on the way down. If someone wants to commit suicide, that's up to them, but there's no need to take others who don't want to die with them.

[porphy]

Obviously the only one looking for attention was the pusher. He will rightfully find himself in court, hopefully charged with attempted murder.

I can't even start to see a problem or anything unclear about if he was doing something wrong, morally or legally, in this case, as it is described in the article. Trying to dress this up as a moral dilemma or a vague legal situation doesn't work at all.

cheers Porphy

[Tribesman]

Well I don't know porphy , several times I have said to a friend over the past year "next time the bastard does it either just leave him to hypothermia or put your boot on his head to push him out of the eddy"
Suicide is selfish , and in the case I refer to the selfish bastard has not only wasted both taxpayers money and charitable donations he has also wasted the time of the Gardai ,Fire brigade and Lifeboatmen , but most importantly he has also risked their lives (and of course disrupted traffic, but as O'Briens bridge doesn't get much traffic anyway since pedestrianisation and traffic in Galway is screwed anyway that isn't really an issue) (OK he could do another bridge for his "suicide" and screw up traffic even more but they don't have the same eddies without the undertow so he would die like most of the other selfish bastards)

[porphy]

I think the question was if the pusher was doing something wrong, not if suicide is the ultimate selfish thing. Anyway, according to you view on suicide, I would say that if one push the guy, you just helped him out with the most selfish thing. So that would still be a clear wrong to me. :yep:


Cheers Porphy

[JALU3]

Since one cannot assist suicide, by definition of suicide being taking of ones own life, anyone who "assist" is actually killing another individual. killing another individual, without intent, to kill is manslaughter; killing another individual, with intent, to kill is murder. If I am wrong in my definitions, I can stand to be corrected.

[Jimbuna]

The paper said Lai was released on bail Friday but did not give any details. It said he had been on medication for "a mental illness" for decades and had been on his way to a hospital for his pills.


Now that's one helluva suprise :rotfl:

Keep em both in a sanitorium to protect the public from them :DL

[bookworm_020]

assisted suicide???:hmmm:

At least someone gave him a helping hand, just in the wrong direction!:dead:

[Highbury]

My initial thought is that it's similar to assisted suicide. Not a "bad" thing to do IMO, if the person truly wishes it to be that way, but whether or not this was the case is impossible to determine in this scenario.

If the person was in fact going to jump, and assisted suicide is allowed by law, I don't think the guy who pushed the other did anything wrong.

Still, pretty bizarre story. :-?

So called "Assisted Suicide" is a pact between two people. If one person states they want to die so another pulls out a gun shoots him is that assisted suicide? lol. I think the fact that the suicidal person had no idea it was comin' changes things.

[XabbaRus]

Well I don't know porphy , several times I have said to a friend over the past year "next time the bastard does it either just leave him to hypothermia or put your boot on his head to push him out of the eddy"
Suicide is selfish , and in the case I refer to the selfish bastard has not only wasted both taxpayers money and charitable donations he has also wasted the time of the Gardai ,Fire brigade and Lifeboatmen , but most importantly he has also risked their lives (and of course disrupted traffic, but as O'Briens bridge doesn't get much traffic anyway since pedestrianisation and traffic in Galway is screwed anyway that isn't really an issue) (OK he could do another bridge for his "suicide" and screw up traffic even more but they don't have the same eddies without the undertow so he would die like most of the other selfish bastards)

Sorry tribeman can't agrere with you there. Having viewed mental inllness up close and dealt with someone who is suicidal you can't second guess what is going on. I also don't think suicide is necessarily selfish. Your entitled to your opion but I do object to them being called bastards.

[Arclight]

So called "Assisted Suicide" is a pact between two people. If one person states they want to die so another pulls out a gun shoots him is that assisted suicide?Yep, as far as I'm concerned. :yep:

Whether it's a doctor administering some drug, or someone shooting another in the face, they are just different means to the same end.

[CaptainHaplo]

The difference is - legal assisted suicide (in the us as least) requires the person who dies to be suffering from mid to late stages of a terminal illness.

Just wanting to end it for the sake of ending it when there is life to be lived - isnt the same deal.

Also - assisted suicide is used for those that wish to die, but cannot bear to commit the act themselves. There are numerous reasons for this - including some religious ones. Pushing a jumper - is assualt with intent to kill at the least.

[Aramike]

The difference is - legal assisted suicide (in the us as least) requires the person who dies to be suffering from mid to late stages of a terminal illness.

Just wanting to end it for the sake of ending it when there is life to be lived - isnt the same deal.

Also - assisted suicide is used for those that wish to die, but cannot bear to commit the act themselves. There are numerous reasons for this - including some religious ones. Pushing a jumper - is assualt with intent to kill at the least.
What if the pusher knew there were safety devices in place below and was simply trying to expedite the situation?

[SUBMAN1]

26'? That's it? There is a good chance you might survive from that height. Can't say much for your broken bones though.

Not a very suicidal person if that is all the height he had.

-S

[bookworm_020]

Here is a video of it

http://media.smh.com.au/national/national-news

[August]

Obviously the only one looking for attention was the pusher. He will rightfully find himself in court, hopefully charged with attempted murder.

Is it really attempted murder with a huge and brightly covered air bag positioned just a few feet right below the pushee?

[bookworm_020]

Is it really attempted murder with a huge and brightly covered air bag positioned just a few feet right below the pushee?

A bag that wasn't fully inflated before the guy pushed him! He should be greatful that the guy he pushed isn't sueing him for pain and suffering!:hmmm:

[Aramike]

Is it really attempted murder with a huge and brightly covered air bag positioned just a few feet right below the pushee?Heh, hell no. I, for one, guarantee that many people on this very board would be thinking about doing the same thing in the same situation...

...however, it doesn't make it right, as much as I'd like it to be. Suicidal people make things difficult as it is hard to punish those who don't really give a damn any longer. That is, until they feel the pain of a couple of broken bones.

Look, I don't advocate pushing any suicidal individual over the brink. However, that being said, I have to ask ... why give a crap? If you're standing on the precipice you better have made your decision, as far as I'm concerned.

If this person really wanted to die, he didn't need to do it so publically. What this person wanted was attention - but he clearly didn't think about the individual he caused to lose his job due to tardiness, that may just kill himself over being unemployed and unable to support his family, but will do so quietly...

Or maybe he did think, and didn't care.

In any case, cops should have nets to fire at fools like this. However, jump or no jump - idiots have no right to interfere with the lives of others.

[FIREWALL]

I think the whole things hilarious. :har:

[Sledgehammer427]

"a huge and brightly covered air bag positioned just a few feet right below the pushee"

obviously the guy was giving a helping hand, like the kids on the slide when they wont go down, the one behind them gives a lil poush and down they go, relieved, so they'd do it again without assistance, in a way, its suicide training!:rotfl:

[porphy]

Is it really attempted murder with a huge and brightly covered air bag positioned just a few feet right below the pushee?

Could very well be. At least in Sweden you can be found guilty of murder by three sorts of legal premeditation.

1. Intention to kill the victim.
2. Circumstances show, or you admit, that you have acted to prevent a person from doing something, by lethal means.
3. You can also be found guilty of murder if you act in a way where you don't really care if the other persons lives or dies, as a result of your earlier intentional actions which you couldn't know the outcome of, but at the same time it can be made probable that you would have acted the same way even if you did knew about the deadly outcome. (This is a close call to manslaughter, but by ruling murder the judge shows that you face full responsibility and a higher degree of punishment.)

To me the person pushing the guy of the bridge should clearly be a suspect of attempted murder along one these lines, probably number three. As the guy that was pushed of did survive it won't be murder, obviously, but the case for attempted murder could follow the same sort of reasoning.

The air bag (half inflated) and the height (26', not a few feet) of the drop are circumstances to take into account, but what really counts is the intention of the pusher. His reason stated to the police was that he was fed up with selfish people that doesn't dare to kill themselves but seek attention and also disrupt public life. That could very well be the motive for an attempted murder. From what we know about his motive, he might have tried to push the guy in a way so he would fall 26 feet (7-8 meters) and miss the air bag or hit it before it was fully functional, as he was so upset with this selfish man that he thought himself righteous to cause him harm or even death.

So, in the light of his admittedly brief statement, how is the brightly coloured air bag and the height of 26' (7-8 meters) stopping his motive and actions from fitting well with an attempted murder charge along the lines of 2 or 3? Or even 1?

The thing is, we don't know very much of his intention with the pushing, although we know a bit of his motive, and that combined with his actions certainly makes him a suspect for attempted murder. But only further investigation can show if this is correct, or if he should be charged with something else, as the pushing clearly is legally a crime whether the guy was suicidal or not.


porphy

[Skybird]

His comments must be seen against not our but Chinese cultural background - and that could mean that his anger about the selfishness of one individual will be differently measured by a court, than it would in our Western nations (and our infinite plethora of laws and addendums to laws and special rulings complementing laws and precedences and... and... and...). I do not know the Chinese laws, but even if they equal Western laws in this special circumstances of a situation, it could be that the different culture and different assessement of "individual versus group interest" make the court's judgement somewhat milder. On the other hand one should not forget that it is an authoritarian regime and a social structure traditionally emphasiozing values like obedience and loyalty to laws - which could also lead the man being sentenced quite toughly.

It will also depend on - I assume - whether or not the man can be proven to have been aware (or not) that there was the air cushion below the jumper. If he is found to have been aware of it, I personally eventually would argue to let the pusher go without conseqeunces at all - because he has prevented the suicding guy from moving elsewhere where there was no aircushion, then jumping and killing himself. By pushing the guy, the pusher would have prevented worse outcomes.

I dare no bet what they will do with him. But I'm quite curious.

There is the serious intention to commit suicide, and there is what psychologists call "appellativer Selbstmord" (appealling suicide?) where the threat to commit suicide is meant as a call for help or attention or is a narcissitic tactic of blackmailing. It can be difficult to differ between the two. But in principle I see neither a legal nor an ethical basis to hinder somebody killing himself if he really wants to be dead, and therefore I accept only in case of the latter people - those who are appealing, but not really wanting to be dead - to intervene. However, that intervention already is another ethical problem in itself, eventually. It's tricky business, really, and one should not try to act by a generalised blueprint (to which especially psychologists, jurists and religious zealots are prone), but judge on an individual case-by-case assessment.

Of course, laws that forbid suicide (or even declare death penalty for attempted suicide, like historically it has been the case in some european countries) are not only not helpful, but are simply absurd.

[porphy]

Heh, hell no. I, for one, guarantee that many people on this very board would be thinking about doing the same thing in the same situation...

...however, it doesn't make it right, as much as I'd like it to be. Suicidal people make things difficult as it is hard to punish those who don't really give a damn any longer. That is, until they feel the pain of a couple of broken bones.

Look, I don't advocate pushing any suicidal individual over the brink. However, that being said, I have to ask ... why give a crap? If you're standing on the precipice you better have made your decision, as far as I'm concerned.

If this person really wanted to die, he didn't need to do it so publically. What this person wanted was attention - but he clearly didn't think about the individual he caused to lose his job due to tardiness, that may just kill himself over being unemployed and unable to support his family, but will do so quietly...

Or maybe he did think, and didn't care.

In any case, cops should have nets to fire at fools like this. However, jump or no jump - idiots have no right to interfere with the lives of others.

I totally agree with the last sentance. Idiots thinking and acting as it's a good idea or nothing really wrong with the fact that they themselves, as a private person, decide when to interfere and push other people, suicidal or not, off a bridge should stay well clear of others.

It's no crime to feel that suicidal persons, those lacking the determination when on the edge, or those feigning it for attention, should be pushed off, be it for a helping hand to die or punishing their selfishness by some broken bones or a good scare. To me, that, or "why giving a crap" mostly shows lacking acknowledgement of all the different conditions and situations that can lead a person to become suicidal or act as suicidal, and what to do about it in a responsible way. In many countries suicide is the most common cause of death between 15-44 years of age. It clearly seems to be something to care about, even when someone already is on his way over the railing of a bridge.


In this case the pusher was indicated as suffering from a mental illness of some sort, which might tell us something more about how to view his actions, and possibly any desire to go through with the same as he did.

I don't really know what to make of your saying, that even if some people probably would think like the pusher, it doesn't make it right, although you somehow would like it to be?
In what respect do you want it to be right then? Would you like some change on how to treat suicidal people, or people on the edge of a bridge, be it high or a bit lower, or in public view? Or is it a change about how to view individuals who walk through and then pushes a distressed person off a bridge. The whole take on the issue seems to still be a bit undecided or unclear. :salute:


Time for todays running. I'm really looking forward to the uphill training... not.

Porphy

[SteamWake]

I totally agree with the last sentance. Idiots thinking and acting as it's a good idea or nothing really wrong with the fact that they themselves, as a private person, decide when to interfere and push other people, suicidal or not, off a bridge should stay well clear of others.

It's no crime to feel that suicidal persons, those lacking the determination when on the edge, or those feigning it for attention, should be pushed off, be it for a helping hand to die or punishing their selfishness by some broken bones or a good scare. To me, that, or "why giving a crap" mostly shows lacking acknowledgement of all the different conditions and situations that can lead a person to become suicidal or act as suicidal, and what to do about it in a responsible way. In many countries suicide is the most common cause of death between 15-44 years of age. It clearly seems to be something to care about, even when someone is on his way over the railing of a bridge.


In this case the pusher was indicated as suffering from a mental illness of some sort, which might tell us something more about how to view his actions, and possibly any desire to go through with the same as he did.

I don't really know what to make of your saying, that even if some people probably would think like the pusher, it doesn't make it right, although you somehow would like it to be?
In what respect do you want it to be right then? Would you like some change on how to treat suicidal people, or people on the edge of a bridge, be it high or a bit lower, or in public view? Or is it a change about how to view individuals who walk through and then pushes a distressed person off a bridge. The whole take on the issue seems to still be a bit undecided or unclear. :salute:


Time for todays running. I'm really looking forward to the uphill training... not.

Porphy

What? Cant read a word of it. Black font not a good idea as most use 'smart dark' ;)

[porphy]

Thanks. Looks alright now? Removed some formating. I use haylazblue, but changed to smartdark, and it looks alright with white text now.

[SteamWake]

Thanks. Looks alright now? Removed some formating. I use haylazblue, but changed to smartdark, and it looks alright with white text now.

Better thanks.

[Aramike]

I don't really know what to make of your saying, that even if some people probably would think like the pusher, it doesn't make it right, although you somehow would like it to be?
In what respect do you want it to be right then? Would you like some change on how to treat suicidal people, or people on the edge of a bridge, be it high or a bit lower, or in public view? Or is it a change about how to view individuals who walk through and then pushes a distressed person off a bridge. The whole take on the issue seems to still be a bit undecided or unclear. That's because my opinion is divided. On the one hand, I can see the pusher's point. On the other hand is my respect for humanities. Mix that in with a pinch of incredulousness at someone thinking that they might kill themselves from a jump of 26' and I really don't know.

[August]

2. Circumstances show, or you admit, that you have acted to prevent a person from doing something, by lethal means

Surely this can't be as simple as all that. What happens if that person is attacking say your child, you intervene to stop the attack and end up killing the attacker?

That would be considered murder by Swedish law?

[porphy]

That's because my opinion is divided. On the one hand, I can see the pusher's point. On the other hand is my respect for humanities. Mix that in with a pinch of incredulousness at someone thinking that they might kill themselves from a jump of 26' and I really don't know.


A true moral problem then! Not only something where it is hard to do the right thing, but a case where one has no safe exit in advance.

[Letum]

Surely this can't be as simple as all that. What happens if that person is attacking say your child, you intervene to stop the attack and end up killing the attacker?

That would be considered murder by Swedish law?

If you kill someone whilst restraining them you are either phenomenally bad at
restraining, acting in self defense after they tried to kill you or guilty of
manslaughter.

[Aramike]

A true moral problem then! Not only something where it is hard to do the right thing, but a case where one has no safe exit in advance.The moral question is why I thought the topic interesting enough to start a thread over.

There are many dimensions to this event. One is that traffic was severly tied up. What if an ambulance needed to get through? What if a person who was stuck in traffic had an emergency medical condition?

Also, one must seriously question the motivations of someone who's interested in killing themselves so publically. Suicide in and of itself is a sickly selfish act in most cases. But if you're really going to do it, what's the point in bringing your little corner of the world to a halt?

[porphy]

Surely this can't be as simple as all that. What happens if that person is attacking say your child, you intervene to stop the attack and end up killing the attacker?

That would be considered murder by Swedish law?

No, I should perhaps have been more clear about this. This is three different sorts of intention you can be charged with for a crime, with murder as an example. Direct intention, indirect intention and "don't care intention". Very rough translations as I don't know the proper terms. Of course the court will also consider self defence, proper use of violence to stop other serious crimes and other relevant circumstances.

The point was to show that with charge for murder it doesn't have to be only direct intention to kill that counts. So attempted murder for the bridge pusher can probably be a charge along the same lines, if the actions and circumstances points to indirect intention (2) or intention where you act and do not know the effects for sure, but also can be shown to not care if the the outcome will be the death of the victim (3).

You could for example find out that someone pushed a guy off to stop him from committing a suicide, but the means were lethal. That could be murder with indirect intention.

You could find out that a person pushed someone off in rage of his supposed suicidal behaviour. The pusher will not know for sure that the action will kill the victim (the low bridge and half inflated air bag for example), but at the same time say something like "I don't care even if I knew he certainly would die, I would push him anyway". That would be murder, or attempted murder, along the nr. 3 intention.

In my view the pusher in this particular case is very close to the number 3 sort of intention, but of course the scant information we have from the newspaper is not enough to decide that. But I would think the police should investigate and and possibly charge along those lines, if something like this do exist in Chinese law. It is of course illegal to have persons pushing people off bridges, with very real risks of injury and death, as they see fit anyhow, so the guy, in my view, deserves to be tried for a quite severe charge, if possible.

porphy

[August]

so the guy, in my view, deserves to be tried for a quite severe charge, if possible.

porphy

Thanks for the amplification Porphy. It is much appreciated.

[August]

If you kill someone whilst restraining them you are either phenomenally bad at
restraining, acting in self defense after they tried to kill you or guilty of
manslaughter.

So all you are allowed to do is restrain someone in England? That doesn't sound like much of an option if the attacker is physically more powerful. Also your three options do not include acting in defense of others. How far are you allowed to go in defense of another person?

[porphy]

The moral question is why I thought the topic interesting enough to start a thread over.

There are many dimensions to this event. One is that traffic was severly tied up. What if an ambulance needed to get through? What if a person who was stuck in traffic had an emergency medical condition?

Also, one must seriously question the motivations of someone who's interested in killing themselves so publically. Suicide in and of itself is a sickly selfish act in most cases. But if you're really going to do it, what's the point in bringing your little corner of the world to a halt?

Sure, there are many dimensions to the situation. For my part I don't find it to be a moral dilemma when it comes to the pusher though. It is very clear to me that it is wrong to push anyone of a bridge, unasked for and without any knowledge of something else happening to call for that drastic action. Saying there might be severe consequences for others when trying to kill yourself in public is very true, but I can't see this makes the pusher doing the right thing, or even making it a vague case morally in any respect. You don't push anyone off because you are upset and find them selfish or choosing the wrong or bad spot for suicide. No dilemma there for me.

Now, the question if suicide is sickly selfish is more difficult. Yes, people that have experienced a friends suicide, or one in their family very often have strong feelings of anger and disappointment, as well as grief and regret. But does that really mean that suicide is in itself selfish?
I would say that one does not really gain anything by suicide. When you are dead you will not even feel relief. But you simply finish life, you don't want to be alive any more. Stop to exist. That is stepping out of life, for whatever reason, and there can be very many reasons. This can't easily be labelled as selfish, as selfish things are done in life where you will reap the benefits of selfishness, or plan the selfish act. In contrast to the view of selfishness it is also very common that suicidal persons view their own suicide as a way to actually release a burden from others, sacrificing themselves and getting what they deserve. In addition to that, the actual suicide or attempt is often an impulsive and non thoroughly planed action, that even the affected person couldn't foresee.
I do not want to rule out suicides as a kind of last selfish revenge in a twisted and haunted mind, and some people do plan their suicide as well, but I really think selfishness very seldom is a correct way of fully describing suicides in themselves. There is one way to look at it from the person ready and determined to kill himself, and there is one way to look at it from outside as friend, family or society. Those perspectives will rarely meet, if ever.

porphy

[Letum]

So all you are allowed to do is restrain someone in England? That doesn't sound like much of an option if the attacker is physically more powerful. Also your three options do not include acting in defense of others. How far are you allowed to go in defense of another person?


You may use "reasonable force". That may include killing someone, but it is
hard to imagine may situations in where that would be reasonable, given other
options.

[August]

You may use "reasonable force". That may include killing someone, but it is
hard to imagine may situations in where that would be reasonable, given other
options.

I guess it depends on what you consider those other options to be.

[Aramike]

I would say that one does not really gain anything by suicide. When you are dead you will not even feel relief. But you simply finish life, you don't want to be alive any more. Stop to exist. That is stepping out of life, for whatever reason, and there can be very many reasons. This can't easily be labelled as selfish, as selfish things are done in life where you will reap the benefits of selfishness, or plan the selfish act. In contrast to the view of selfishness it is also very common that suicidal persons view their own suicide as a way to actually release a burden from others, sacrificing themselves and getting what they deserve. In addition to that, the actual suicide or attempt is often an impulsive and non thoroughly planed action, that even the affected person couldn't foresee.Suicide is almost ALWAYS a selfish act. The only case where it isn't is when it is in the immediate best-interest of others (e.g., laying on a grenade). It is disingenous to ignore the fact that "benefits" are perspective-based. As such, what may seem as inconsequential or negative to most of us may appear to be highly beneficial to the suicidal individual.

As far as this case is concerned however, I question the motives of the suicidal individual in the first place. Would it not be more prudent to avoid large crowds?

Most people commit suicide because they don't see a "way out", as it were. As such, they create one through death. As tragic as that is, pragmatism suggests that one's existance merely continuing to the next day IS the way out.

As such, the act of suicide is mostly nothing more than a selfish behavior in response to unfavorable conditions.

[porphy]

[quote]Suicide is almost ALWAYS a selfish act. The only case where it isn't is when it is in the immediate best-interest of others (e.g., laying on a grenade). It is disingenous to ignore the fact that "benefits" are perspective-based. As such, what may seem as inconsequential or negative to most of us may appear to be highly beneficial to the suicidal individual.

As far as this case is concerned however, I question the motives of the suicidal individual in the first place. Would it not be more prudent to avoid large crowds?

Most people commit suicide because they don't see a "way out", as it were. As such, they create one through death. As tragic as that is, pragmatism suggests that one's existance merely continuing to the next day IS the way out.

As such, the act of suicide is mostly nothing more than a selfish behavior in response to unfavorable conditions.I don't think I ignored the different perspectives, and I'm certainly not disingenuous on the subject. Rather the opposite, have another a look at my original post.

You seem unwilling to actually see it from the point of someone suicidal. I totally agree that suicide is creating a option where you see no other. But how is that selfish? If you truly think and is convinced that your own death is the only way out of a situation or solving it, how is that selfish from that persons perspective? There are no other ways, for this person, so you can't choose. If you can't choose, how are you selfish or getting benefits out of it? If you mean emotional benefits from contemplating or talking about suicide, yes some sorts of benefits can probably be shown, but then why are people then really killing themselves? That means the end of any benefits and anything that can be called selfish.

Sure, pragmatics might say that you should exist another day to see if new possibilities open up, but that is exactly what a suicidal person will not see or agree with. You can't tell a suicidal person this and hope for good results, at least not if the suicidal condition is severe. There is a clash of perspectives here, and saying that suicide is essentially selfish is covering that up, hence it is not a good way of describing or understanding suicides. This view might even lead you to treat suicidal persons in a dangerous way.

I'm not a native speaker of English, but talking about the benefits of committing suicide sounds strange, it is a forced way of using the idea of benefits and selfish behaviour, and it puts some sort of blame in the game where it is doubtful if that accomplishes anything. It might be a good idea to have values in a society that makes suicide something persons in general feel is very wrong and should be avoided at all costs, but the problem is that those values that are in place to do this, might also distort and simplify the view of what a suicide can be. In a worst case scenario you have values about suicide that does not really help anyone that is suicidal, as shame and blame about selfishness gets in the way! If one hopes that those judgements will keep people on the right track, that is a bit naive. Suicidal people need help with in their very real life situations, not some dodgy idea about "suicide in itself as essentially selfish" to keep them in line. So, my point is, stop simplifying by saying that "suicides mostly is nothing more than selfish behaviour". That really is the easy way out.

The reasons and motives, viewed from the one being suicidal, doesn't really count when you say it is always selfish. I said that selfishness is seldom a proper way to fully describe or judge suicide, you do it the other way, by saying that it almost always is the appropriate view. That is neglecting and simplifying something most people find hard to fully understand or give a proper account of. The added moral sting with the selfish label is not making the claim any stronger. To me it suggests that the idea of suicides as essentially selfish is mostly backed up by, or trying to get support from, the feeling that nearly everyone experiencing a suicide of someone close to them will have. But that is from the point of people left behind, and that is not a full account of what suicide is.

(For the record: throwing one self on a grenade to save others is not best called a suicide, but a sacrifice. Isn't it something disturbingly wrong about describing what happened that way as a soldier committing suicide? :) )

/Porphy

[Skybird]

I would be more cautious to call suicide in general a "selfish" act. It can be that, but it can also be anything but that. It even can be right the opposite. And again one must take into account the basic difference between "appellativer" suicide, and honestly wanted suicide. Plus cultural differences. Suicide in some Asian countries is considered in a different way than in Europe. And in europe it is seen differently in more liberal and free social groups, than in Polish or Spanish arch-conservative Catholic groups or the American bible belt.

Maybe acting with self-restraint before calling such a terminal decision "selfish", would be a good idea.

I have spent some time working in a hospice movement, and lethally ill people in a town hospital in Osnabrück, that was '93 and '94. That cured me from imposing such imperative judgements onto people saying they want to die. It also was a good additional preparation for my later engagement as meditation teacher.

Not fearing death without needlessly wishing for it, living your life without clinging to it - that is what it's about. You can't live if you separate out death. You cannot live freely and in full if fearing to die. you cannot die well if not having lived. Practically all so-called "books of the dead" there have been (there was/is not only the famous Tibetan one), are about this simple truth (beside describing the exact stages and the process of the experience of dying).

[Jimbuna]

You may use "reasonable force". That may include killing someone, but it is
hard to imagine may situations in where that would be reasonable, given other
options.

The taking of a life by a civilian using physical strength would ver be deemed as 'reasonable force' by a court in the UK these days.

The courts are far too lenient these days....remember the farmer Tony Martin anyone?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

Now on the other hand....had the burglars been armed and fired on him first, what a real dilemna for the judicial system.

Thank God there is always justifiable manslaughter to fall back on.

[August]

Through early morning fog I see
visions of the things to be
the pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see...

[chorus]:
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.

I try to find a way to make
all our little joys relate
without that ever-present hate
but now I know that it's too late, and...

[Chorus]

The game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
The losing card I'll someday lay
so this is all I have to say.

[Chorus]

The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I'm beat
and to another give my seat
for that's the only painless feat.

[Chorus]

MASH
The sword of time will pierce our skins
It doesn't hurt when it begins
But as it works its way on in
The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...

[Chorus]

A brave man once requested me
to answer questions that are key
'is it to be or not to be'
and I replied 'oh why ask me?'

'Cause suicide is painless
it brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
...and you can do the same thing if you choose.


10 points to anyone under 30 who knows what movie this is from without googling it...

[porphy]

Through early morning fog I see
visions of the things to be
the pains that are withheld for me
I realize and I can see...

[chorus]:
That suicide is painless
It brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.

I try to find a way to make
all our little joys relate
without that ever-present hate
but now I know that it's too late, and...

[Chorus]

The game of life is hard to play
I'm gonna lose it anyway
The losing card I'll someday lay
so this is all I have to say.

[Chorus]

The only way to win is cheat
And lay it down before I'm beat
and to another give my seat
for that's the only painless feat.

[Chorus]

MASH
The sword of time will pierce our skins
It doesn't hurt when it begins
But as it works its way on in
The pain grows stronger...watch it grin, but...

[Chorus]

A brave man once requested me
to answer questions that are key
'is it to be or not to be'
and I replied 'oh why ask me?'

'Cause suicide is painless
it brings on many changes
and I can take or leave it if I please.
...and you can do the same thing if you choose.


10 points to anyone under 30 who knows what movie this is from without googling it...

I know, but I'm older than 30, so no points to me... :cool:

[Letum]

I'll take those 10 points.
Not a bad film.
I keep meaning to buy a boxset of the series'.

[Jimbuna]

It might have been a teensy weensy bit harder if you had edited your original post morw carefully.....a lot of people have eyes like a hawk here and their radar finely tuned :know:

[Aramike]

You seem unwilling to actually see it from the point of someone suicidal. I totally agree that suicide is creating a option where you see no other. But how is that selfish? If you truly think and is convinced that your own death is the only way out of a situation or solving it, how is that selfish from that persons perspective? There are no other ways, for this person, so you can't choose. If you can't choose, how are you selfish or getting benefits out of it? If you mean emotional benefits from contemplating or talking about suicide, yes some sorts of benefits can probably be shown, but then why are people then really killing themselves? That means the end of any benefits and anything that can be called selfish. It IS selfish when someone is attempting to solve THEIR problems and/or acting in a manner they believe is their self-interest.

You don't see death as a benefit. From the suicidal individual's perspective, death is a benefit unto itself, as I've pointed out. To imply there is no choice makes no sense, as living is the clear alternative. Just because one doesn't LIKE a choice doesn't mean there isn't one.

In fact, I would suggest that I'm looking at it from the suicidal person's perspective and you're looking at it from a survivor's point of view.

Suicide, in MOST cases, in the sense we are talking about, is purely a selfish act. One is doing what one believes to be in one's best interest, which is the definition of selfish.

PS: Bear in mind that there is more to selfishness than its negative connotation implies.

[Biggles]

Well, he pushed him to the side where the big pillow lay, so I guess he just tried to save his life (although maybe against the buggers will) and not to do him any harm. I've seen a video of the event now, and the guy hit a part of the bridge before landing safely, I guess that's where he got his wounds.

[porphy]

It IS selfish when someone is attempting to solve THEIR problems and/or acting in a manner they believe is their self-interest.

So if instead deciding to live on and solve their problem, would that also be selfish and the verification of self-interest as well? According to that description it would. It seems to be on the verge of the rather empty view that whatever a person do, it can be reduced to some kind of self-interest and selfish behaviour. If not, how is the two options, live or die, differentiated by referring to "solving their problems" and acting from what "is their self-interest"? And how is other ways of solving their problems not purely selfish behaviour in itself?

You don't see death as a benefit. From the suicidal individual's perspective, death is a benefit unto itself, as I've pointed out. I think you get me wrong here. If something is beneficial it means you get something out of it, a profit, a good feeling or better treatment. When you are dead you wont get anything, that is more or less a fact. That is why I did agree earlier that it might be beneficial to a person to talk about suicide or think about it. That might lead to something beneficial for that person in his life. But when you kill yourself, this is a kind of action that puts an end to everything, for you. So claiming that a suicide is in itself selfish, or that death is beneficial unto itself for a suicidal person, seems to me like extending concepts outside their proper use. A person doing some action that is selfish, must somehow be able to be the beneficiary of his doing, especially if it is supposed to be selfish in any clear way. But when you are dead you can't, that is one reason why the actual suicide can't be an selfish act in itself.
If death really was beneficial unto itself for a person, we would see people killing themselves in order to die, literally. Death as beneficial unto itself is not a very good shorthand for everything and all situations where suicides take place. Saying and meaning that would once again result in neglecting all the different reasons and situations that really can cause and do cause suicides. This way of only concentrating on a simplified formula of people seeing death as beneficial unto itself and suicide as selfish in itself is, as I said the easy way, it keeps any complications at bay in favour of catch phrases and a tendency to streamline a view of something quite complicated.
My goal in discussing the language of suicide is not to find the proper definition or showing one that doesn't hold up, but to open up the view of suicide to a somewhat more open minded and useful response, when someone actually encounters or reads about suicidal persons. Skybird for example contributed with some real experience that didn't fit the concept of selfishness. Unfortunately you don't seem to find that point of the discussion very worthwhile, but in this case keep the blinders on.

To imply there is no choice makes no sense, as living is the clear alternative. Just because one doesn't LIKE a choice doesn't mean there isn't one.I think there is a bit more to it than not liking the choice to keep living. We are not discussing preference and choice of flavours. Humans have, as most animals, an instinct to survive and stay clear of harm and death. That implies that pretty forceful circumstances are needed to bring one to go through with suicide. By saying there is no choice, I of course mean there is no other option that is deemed a solution or escape for that person. But if you tell them there is, they would probably respond that you don't get it, that you don't see the obvious. Living on is not a viable option, and that can in many circumstances be the same as no other option to choose. That is a clash of perspectives. What would you do about that clash, apart from denying it? People that have been in contact with severe cases of suicidal persons, that still communicates, will tell you that this is what it comes to. Insisting on the option to live on is in many of these cases not a good strategy. Perhaps one could say that the difficult task is to make the person to find that option viable or in view again, on his own, but you can't simply point it out.

In fact, I would suggest that I'm looking at it from the suicidal person's perspective and you're looking at it from a survivor's point of view.Well, what about the alternative that both of us have something relevant to say about the suicidal persons perspective and the survivors view? That would still mean that far from all suicides are selfish behaviour in itself, and that quite a few cases will probably not conform to your view about death as a benefit unto itself for a suicidal person.

Suicide, in MOST cases, in the sense we are talking about, is purely a selfish act. One is doing what one believes to be in one's best interest, which is the definition of selfish.I have already pointed out that this is quite wide, almost empty, definition when applied to real cases. I can't really see why you need to keep up the idea of "purely selfish acts" when anyone taking five minutes to read about suicides will find it a very complex phenomenon, rather than one which can be quickly summarized or reduced to as in itself selfish behaviour. Of course you are right if the sense of suicide we are talking about is only the the ones that fit your definition, but then the whole thing is quite pointless.
You seem to rely on the words quite a bit, in order to keep one view of suicide intact. I also like words, but in this case I'm not using them to fight of a complex reality. Rather the opposite, I have repeatedly said that my view is that selfishness is not a good description to fully account for suicide as it cover up more than it explains.

PS: Bear in mind that there is more to selfishness than its negative connotation implies.True, trying to use selfish without the negative connotation or the idea of experienced benefits is not uncommon. Richard Dawkins did that in the book "The Selfish Gene", with some very mixed results in my view. I'm not sure he himself could clearly explain what he means on some of the pages in that book. :)

Oh dear, now I have spent a lot of time this evening to write here again. Will need to cook some food and do the evening excersise. Take care.

porphy

[Aramike]

Oh Lord, he we go ... the old line-by-line quote game. You should really relax, though - as the "tone" of your posts is clearly unneccessary.

And, just so you know, I'm not trying to talk someone down off the edge here, so don't expect my perspectives to be PC in any way.So if instead deciding to live on and solve their problem, would that also be selfish and the verification of self-interest as well? No, because living is the default (the state the one is at).

Personally I believe almost everything everyone does is for selfish reasons. You should attempt to avoid the stigma of the word and stick to its literal definition.I think you get me wrong here. If something is beneficial it means you get something out of it, a profit, a good feeling or better treatment. All "beneficial" means is a favorable result. What is "favorable" is quite subjective and depends on one's perspective.But when you are dead you can't, that is one reason why the actual suicide can't be an selfish act in itself. That's silly. Any action can be selfish, considering that the ACTUAL definition of selfish is: "concerned chiefly with oneself." The result of the act has no bearing upon the motivation of the act itself.Skybird for example contributed with some real experience that didn't fit the concept of selfishness. Unfortunately you don't seem to find that point of the discussion very worthwhile, but in this case keep the blinders on.You need to settle down and stop getting so riled up over this. I have a different point of view than you do. Deal with it.

In any case, I've acknowledged several posts back that NOT all suicides are selfish and as such have no disagreement with the aforementioned examples. Why the HELL should I have to address something I agree with? I think there is a bit more to it than not liking the choice to keep living. We are not discussing preference and choice of flavours. Humans have, as most animals, an instinct to survive and stay clear of harm and death. That implies that pretty forceful circumstances are needed to bring one to go through with suicide. By saying there is no choice, I of course mean there is no other option that is deemed a solution or escape for that person. But if you tell them there is, they would probably respond that you don't get it, that you don't see the obvious. Living on is not a viable option, and that can in many circumstances be the same as no other option to choose. That is a clash of perspectives. What would you do about that clash, apart from denying it? People that have been in contact with severe cases of suicidal persons, that still communicates, will tell you that this is what it comes to. Insisting on the option to live on is in many of these cases not a good strategy. Perhaps one could say that the difficult task is to make the person to find that option viable or in view again, on his own, but you can't simply point it out. Living on is almost ALWAYS a viable option. Just because that life may not suit one's preferences or comforts, death doesn't become the default state. There are indeed exceptions - but that's what they are.Well, what about the alternative that both of us have something relevant to say about the suicidal persons perspective and the survivors view? That would still mean that far from all suicides are selfish behaviour in itself, and that quite a few cases will probably not conform to your view about death as a benefit unto itself for a suicidal person.I've already said that not all suicides are selfish? Must you build a straw man?I have already pointed out that this is quite wide, almost empty, definition when applied to real cases. I can't really see why you need to keep up the idea of "purely selfish acts" when anyone taking five minutes to read about suicides will find it a very complex phenomenon, rather than one which can be quickly summarized or reduced to as in itself selfish behaviour. Seriously, look up the definition of selfish.

Indeed, there are ALWAYS deeper complexities. However, those do not supercede the more basic perspectives. Rather, they expand upon them. I'm not interested in discussing the layers of complexity in the human mind that decides upon self-destruction. Frankly, it's just not all that interesting to me.

However, I have found (through experience, mind you) that nearly all suicides share a strong component of selfishness. Whether or not that selfishness is justifiable, is irrelevent.

When I make a point, I try to do it without emotional qualification - you should try this. In other words, when I say that most suicides are selfish, it means just that - most suicides are selfish. That doesn't preclude them being justifiable, or having other influences present. Nor does it preclude them from being stupid, senseless acts ... especially in the case of the idiot "attempting" to do so in public from 26' up.

What you're doing is attempting to alter the definition of words to suit your argument. "Selfish" has nothing to do with "beneficial", as you said. Likewise, "beneficial" is not an objective term - a favorable result depends on perspective.

[August]

It might have been a teensy weensy bit harder if you had edited your original post morw carefully.....a lot of people have eyes like a hawk here and their radar finely tuned :know:

:) Wiseass!

You trapped me John

[porphy]

Oh Lord, he we go ... the old line-by-line quote game. You should really relax, though - as the "tone" of your posts is clearly unneccessary.

And, just so you know, I'm not trying to talk someone down off the edge here, so don't expect my perspectives to be PC in any way.

No, because living is the default (the state the one is at).

Personally I believe almost everything everyone does is for selfish reasons. You should attempt to avoid the stigma of the word and stick to its literal definition.

All "beneficial" means is a favorable result. What is "favorable" is quite subjective and depends on one's perspective.

I'm quite relaxed, maybe a bit insistent... you can deal with that as well I hope. Being insistent is also why I used the line by line quotes. My lines make up the whole of your post. So it's not much of the game where one pick and choose pieces of the writing as it suits. Even if it might look a bit like clashing at first sight, it is not how I use it .

Selfish is a word that carries a lot of stigma as you say. If you want to use the word, that is something that has to be taken in consideration. Talking about "sickly selfishness", "nothing more than selfish behaviour" or "merely selfish behaviour" can easily be read as quite strong judgements in connection to suicide. Also how is one supposed to know which meaning you use, as all of them are in the lexicon? In my view you could have done a better job with explaining how this was meant, rather than restating the words and their meanings when people obviously read it in another way than your intention was.

That said, I still don't agree with your use of selfish and beneficial when it comes to suicide. You seemed to want make a special point what suicide is when using these words. But it turns out that you mean nothing special at all in this context, compared to other actions and motives. This is, as far as I can see, because you say that you think almost everything that people do, is mostly motivated by selfish reasons as well. And what is beneficial for someone is what a person favour as the result of any action.

This view on selfishness as a general motivation for action have been discussed to great extent, and I take it that you are well aware of the long standing criticism of this view. At least no one I have ever read on the subject find the literal definitions of the words in a lexicon to be a satisfying way to conclude this question, so I can't see it will do any better in connection to suicide. This is unless you wanted to make some kind of grammatical point about motives and action in connection to suicide. This is a well known method; what something is, is what reasonably can be said about it. Lexicons do give a good hint about what can be said in clear and reasonable way, but they are not the final arbiter, but a starting point for such investigations.

That's silly. Any action can be selfish, considering that the ACTUAL definition of selfish is: "concerned chiefly with oneself." The result of the act has no bearing upon the motivation of the act itself.

What an act is, is not only decided by the motivation for it, but also by the results. A selfish act is not decided only by my motive to act being in accord with the general definition of selfish. The results of the act might mean that it fails being selfish in some respect, especially if the results of the act bar me from what I seek. Even with the most general definition of being concerned chiefly with oneself, nothing will survive to see the results of this action in question. So, I still find it a bit forced to conclude that the motivation for the act decides it fully. Furthermore that is not what you said originally, which was that suicide is in itself selfish behaviour, which at the first impressions sounds as if it is not even decided by the motivation, but somehow in itself. Now it is more clear what you mean, namely that almost all actions have selfish motivation, therefore suicide as action naturally falls within the same category.

You need to settle down and stop getting so riled up over this. I have a different point of view than you do. Deal with it.

In any case, I've acknowledged several posts back that NOT all suicides are selfish and as such have no disagreement with the aforementioned examples. Why the HELL should I have to address something I agree with?

Living on is almost ALWAYS a viable option. Just because that life may not suit one's preferences or comforts, death doesn't become the default state. There are indeed exceptions - but that's what they are.I've already said that not all suicides are selfish? Must you build a straw man?Seriously, look up the definition of selfish.

I obviously missed that acknowledged agreement. In fact I could hardly find it even now. I take it that you mean where you say that almost all suicides are selfish except for immediate actions for the best interest of others. That fits well with the definition of selfish, but I think my point was that real life examples of suicidal behaviour and reasoning should make one a bit sceptical about if this is the best way to give general descriptions of suicide, as its merits mostly seem to be that it fits with the most general definitions of actions as selfish and that death can be viewed as a beneficial result. I still can't see you did acknowledge that.

Indeed, there are ALWAYS deeper complexities. However, those do not supercede the more basic perspectives. Rather, they expand upon them. I'm not interested in discussing the layers of complexity in the human mind that decides upon self-destruction. Frankly, it's just not all that interesting to me.

Fine, in that case you could perhaps say that. How should anyone figure out that you are not all interested in the complexities concerning suicide, when starting a thread about a case of suicidal behaviour and public reactions by a man that said that the jumper was selfish, and then yourself later state that mostly all suicides are sickly selfish?

However, I have found (through experience, mind you) that nearly all suicides share a strong component of selfishness. Whether or not that selfishness is justifiable, is irrelevent.

When I make a point, I try to do it without emotional qualification - you should try this. In other words, when I say that most suicides are selfish, it means just that - most suicides are selfish. That doesn't preclude them being justifiable, or having other influences present. Nor does it preclude them from being stupid, senseless acts ... especially in the case of the idiot "attempting" to do so in public from 26' up.

What you're doing is attempting to alter the definition of words to suit your argument. "Selfish" has nothing to do with "beneficial", as you said. Likewise, "beneficial" is not an objective term - a favorable result depends on perspective.

I will be a bit blunt here: what experience have made you able to find evidence for claiming that nearly all suicides share a strong component of selfishness? I don't question that this is your experience of suicide, or ask for details about things that can be highly private or covered by professional confidentiality. But I'm more curious of the fact that it would be so vast as to claim something like that. Also, if selfishness is a shared strong component in suicide, what are the other components, in your experience?

Please, don't say I'm attempting to doctoring definitions for my own point of view. That is one of the most misused arguments, and it does not fit the bill here. What I'm trying to do, in part, is to see if the words, as defined, really can be used in a responsible way in such general ways, without risking distortion and covering up the nature of real life situations, with language. That might not be your interest, but it doesn't really put me in the game of changing definitions.

Your last try at showing the only right use of the terms are not fully correct. Selfish can indeed have to do with what is beneficial. If you look up both those words, you will find that they also can mean selfish = doing something for your own advantage, with disregard for others, and beneficial = getting a favourable result, as in getting an advantage. I think the connection is quite clear in that case. And if you read your own postings with that in mind you can see how easily you can be read as meaning just that. And I'm still not sure you can stay completely clear from the other meanings of those words, and still say something particular about acts of suicide which differentiate them from other acts.

Sure, emotional qualifications can get in the way when making a point, but sometimes emotions or values are important for how people look at each other and treat each other. Especially when using words like selfish in connection to suicide, which both do have a widespread and common meaning which indeed is connected to strong values and emotions. I think you can see why I find it worthwhile to be a bit (perhaps too) insistent on such occasions to see exactly what views I'm dealing with.

Ok, that's it! Feel free to answer to anything of this if you want to. But I think we can conclude that we now do know a bit more about your view and mine on the subject, and that we probably will not agree fully on this, or make the other guy convert. That might be good enough. :yep:

porphy

[Aramike]

Selfish is a word that carries a lot of stigma as you say. If you want to use the word, that is something that has to be taken in consideration. Talking about "sickly selfishness", "nothing more than selfish behaviour" or "merely selfish behaviour" can easily be read as quite strong judgements in connection to suicide. Also how is one supposed to know which meaning you use, as all of them are in the lexicon? In my view you could have done a better job with explaining how this was meant, rather than restating the words and their meanings when people obviously read it in another way than your intention was. What do you mean, how is one supposed to understand what "meaning" I use? I use the exact same meaning as you do. I just don't attach a positive or negative connotation to it.

Although, by adding certain verbiage I clearly imply that most suicides are negatively selfish - which I still do believe. However, an important word of note is "most".What an act is, is not only decided by the motivation for it, but also by the results.That is a big negative, buddy. For instance, walking is walking despite whether or not one gets anywhere. If I throw a ball, I throw a ball regardless of the result of the throw.So, I still find it a bit forced to conclude that the motivation for the act decides it fully.I agree - you shouldn't conclude that. The motivation PLUS the act defines the entirety of said act. For instance, stating that one throws a ball to a friend because we were playing catch defines the act of throwing the ball. Whether or not the throw was caught, or even was close to the friend (the result) is irrelevent.I obviously missed that acknowledged agreement. In fact I could hardly find it even now. I take it that you mean where you say that almost all suicides are selfish except for immediate actions for the best interest of others. That fits well with the definition of selfish, but I think my point was that real life examples of suicidal behaviour and reasoning should make one a bit sceptical about if this is the best way to give general descriptions of suicide, as its merits mostly seem to be that it fits with the most general definitions of actions as selfish and that death can be viewed as a beneficial result. I still can't see you did acknowledge that.I'm referring to the majority of suicides, which I anecdotally find to be foolishly selfish. No, I do not have statistics on this (and I doubt you have any refutting it) ... but just from my experience the vast majority of suicides occur in people experiencing temporary problems, such as financial ills, intense embarrassment at some public revelation, general "I'd rather die than face tomorrow", etc.

For instance, consider the tragic story of the teenage girl who recently killed herself due to a rival's mother creating a fake MySpace profile and using it to manipulate the "victim". How is, "OMG somebody else thinks I'm total garbage so I'll kill myself" anything BUT selfish? This girl took a false impression of herself and was so distressed by how she felt HER perception was, that she'd rather die than face it. This is a sad, needless case, but it does display a certain sick selfishness.

This girl cared so much about what the perception of her was that she chose to die rather than face it.

Now, the next argument would be whether or not facing it would have been selfish. Sure, but not in the same sense, as waking up the next day and dealing with your circumstances is the default. Suicide is not.Fine, in that case you could perhaps say that. How should anyone figure out that you are not all interested in the complexities concerning suicide, when starting a thread about a case of suicidal behaviour and public reactions by a man that said that the jumper was selfish, and then yourself later state that mostly all suicides are sickly selfish? The purpose of the thread was discussion of the moral authority of the "pusher", as well as the moral authority of the "jumper" who clearly ignored the threat he posed to the general public. Imagine if an ambulance was stuck in the traffic he caused?

I really had no intention of delving into the complexities of the suicidal mind, but I'm not suprised it happened, considering the complexities of this particular discussion forum.I will be a bit blunt here: what experience have made you able to find evidence for claiming that nearly all suicides share a strong component of selfishness?Personal tragedy plus anecdotal. I've seen this issue up close, as well as have read about MANY suicides in the media over the years. The common denominator to ALL is that the "victim" finds suicide to be a solution to a particular problem centered around themselves.

Do you have any evidence that this is untrue?I don't question that this is your experience of suicide, or ask for details about things that can be highly private or covered by professional confidentiality. But I'm more curious of the fact that it would be so vast as to claim something like that. Also, if selfishness is a shared strong component in suicide, what are the other components, in your experience? Other components would revolve around mental disillusionment, intense physical pain and/or impairment, societal ostracism, etc, etc. Ultimately, however, all of those are selfish reasons.

However, certain of those reasons are definitely understandable (such as the terminal patient killing himself to end the pain). However, in my experience, that is no where NEAR the majority of the suicides that occur. Rather, most people who kill themselves seem to do so for the purpose of sparing themselves a level of shame, which is what I call sickly selfish.

Indeed, my belief that this is the majority is anecdotal at best - I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that. However, your belief that it is not the majority is equally anecdotal, if that is indeed what you believe.Please, don't say I'm attempting to doctoring definitions for my own point of view. That is one of the most misused arguments, and it does not fit the bill here. What I'm trying to do, in part, is to see if the words, as defined, really can be used in a responsible way in such general ways, without risking distortion and covering up the nature of real life situations, with language. That might not be your interest, but it doesn't really put me in the game of changing definitions.I'm sorry, but that is specifically what you did. You said, "If something is beneficial it means you get something out of it, a profit, a good feeling or better treatment."

In no language is that the definition of beneficial. Sure, in some cases it FITS the definition, but you leave out the fact that the word is based upon a perception of favorability and instead substitute what YOU see as favorable as an absolute.Your last try at showing the only right use of the terms are not fully correct. Selfish can indeed have to do with what is beneficial. If you look up both those words, you will find that they also can mean selfish = doing something for your own advantage, with disregard for others, and beneficial = getting a favourable result, as in getting an advantage. I think the connection is quite clear in that case. And if you read your own postings with that in mind you can see how easily you can be read as meaning just that. And I'm still not sure you can stay completely clear from the other meanings of those words, and still say something particular about acts of suicide which differentiate them from other acts.The thing is that beneficial and selfish can be mutually exclusive. As such, selfishness does not neccessarily mean beneficial. Considering that we're discussing what *I* meant by the term "selfish", it would seem prudent to allow me to explain how I meant it.Sure, emotional qualifications can get in the way when making a point, but sometimes emotions or values are important for how people look at each other and treat each other.I couldn't agree with you more, but...Especially when using words like selfish in connection to suicide, which both do have a widespread and common meaning which indeed is connected to strong values and emotions. I think you can see why I find it worthwhile to be a bit (perhaps too) insistent on such occasions to see exactly what views I'm dealing with. ...one must first attempt to understand an argument before countering it. We face a situation where there really aren't any statistics, and right or wrong, to back either of us up. Therefore we are left with anecdotal evidence in support of what we believe.

I agree with you that there are some people who commit suicide for justifiably selfish reasons. My contention however, is that the majority of suicides are for reasons unjustified, and specifically relate to the subject sparing themselves shame.

My thought process is this: the teenager who would kill themself over being considered unpopular at school will likely respond far better to an intense stigma associated with killing themself than any other method. So many suicidals justify their action by the rationale of "I'll show them" that I believe many can be prevented simply by saying "you'll show them, what? That you're a selfish idiot?".Ok, that's it! Feel free to answer to anything of this if you want to. But I think we can conclude that we now do know a bit more about your view and mine on the subject, and that we probably will not agree fully on this, or make the other guy convert. That might be good enough. It's all good. Honestly, it's common knowledge that I love using the "quote" style of debate. Furthermore, I can get pretty intense and nasty with my arguments, although I do try to only do that in response to others (albeit, you start it I try to fire back ten times as hard). However, this isn't one of those discussions because we both believe that suicides cover the spectrum of motivations - the difference seems to lie in what we believe constitutes the majority. As neither of us can prove it one way or another, there's no point in being overly contentious regarding the subject. :|\\

[porphy]

What do you mean, how is one supposed to understand what "meaning" I use? I use the exact same meaning as you do. I just don't attach a positive or negative connotation to it.

Although, by adding certain verbiage I clearly imply that most suicides are negatively selfish - which I still do believe. However, an important word of note is "most".Ok, I'll rephrase that a bit. How is one supposed to be clear about that you do not attach any positive or negative connotations to the word selfish? What I meant with different "meanings", is simply that many dictionaries will also show, apart from a definition, examples of using a word in different situations, and in the case with selfish, indeed with such implied negative connotations. On many occasions you don't say "selfish" unless you imply something negative. That is, there are typical occasions where you do use the word in a way that imply something negative. Looking up the definition of the word will not tell me if you do attach connotations to it or not. Everyone knows that selfish often has strong connotations, so I think one has to be quite clear from the start if you specifically do not imply any of that, but only want to keep to its denotation and later put in other words that say if the selfish act was negative or not. That is, in my view, the responsible way of using the word "selfish" when discussing suicide.

That is a big negative, buddy. For instance, walking is walking despite whether or not one gets anywhere. If I throw a ball, I throw a ball regardless of the result of the throw.

I agree - you shouldn't conclude that. The motivation PLUS the act defines the entirety of said act. For instance, stating that one throws a ball to a friend because we were playing catch defines the act of throwing the ball. Whether or not the throw was caught, or even was close to the friend (the result) is irrelevent.Yes, I can see the point of that view. But I still find this a quite difficult thing. Could I not also say that throwing a ball or walking will still be what it is, regardless of the motivation for the act? There also are situations where the question is, did he really walk or make a throw? Maybe he was better described as running or dropping the ball? Results of the act seem to enter here in order to justify it as such an act, even when the motivation is clear. Also motivation, as I understand it, is a persons reason to act in a specific way, but your motivation for action is not fulfilled only by doing this act, but also by its results, failed or not.
I'm not really sure what this means in connection to suicide, but my feeling is that saying it is mostly a selfish act is shortcuting itself, as the results of the very act precludes the suicadal person to see if the act really accomplishes what he wanted, as being chiefly concerned with himself. I agree that a suicidal person when talking or thinking about a situation often is selfish in the way you mean, the question is if this really makes the act in itself selfish.

I'm referring to the majority of suicides, which I anecdotally find to be foolishly selfish. No, I do not have statistics on this (and I doubt you have any refutting it) ... but just from my experience the vast majority of suicides occur in people experiencing temporary problems, such as financial ills, intense embarrassment at some public revelation, general "I'd rather die than face tomorrow", etc.

For instance, consider the tragic story of the teenage girl who recently killed herself due to a rival's mother creating a fake MySpace profile and using it to manipulate the "victim". How is, "OMG somebody else thinks I'm total garbage so I'll kill myself" anything BUT selfish? This girl took a false impression of herself and was so distressed by how she felt HER perception was, that she'd rather die than face it. This is a sad, needless case, but it does display a certain sick selfishness.

This girl cared so much about what the perception of her was that she chose to die rather than face it.

Now, the next argument would be whether or not facing it would have been selfish. Sure, but not in the same sense, as waking up the next day and dealing with your circumstances is the default. Suicide is not.The purpose of the thread was discussion of the moral authority of the "pusher", as well as the moral authority of the "jumper" who clearly ignored the threat he posed to the general public. Imagine if an ambulance was stuck in the traffic he caused?

I really had no intention of delving into the complexities of the suicidal mind, but I'm not suprised it happened, considering the complexities of this particular discussion forum.Personal tragedy plus anecdotal. I've seen this issue up close, as well as have read about MANY suicides in the media over the years. The common denominator to ALL is that the "victim" finds suicide to be a solution to a particular problem centered around themselves.

Do you have any evidence that this is untrue?Other components would revolve around mental disillusionment, intense physical pain and/or impairment, societal ostracism, etc, etc. Ultimately, however, all of those are selfish reasons.

However, certain of those reasons are definitely understandable (such as the terminal patient killing himself to end the pain). However, in my experience, that is no where NEAR the majority of the suicides that occur. Rather, most people who kill themselves seem to do so for the purpose of sparing themselves a level of shame, which is what I call sickly selfish.
I agree that none of us have more than anecdotes and some personal experience to rely on. But my personal experience with a suicidal person, and what I did read about it back then, makes me draw other conclusions about how to talk about this phenomenon. I think the paragraph above with components of suicides is important in that respect.
This is what I would find crucial when discussing suicides, namely that the actual circumstances and the more specific and different reasons and circumstances for the act do get out in the open, rather than concentrating on an abstract and very general statement that most suicides are selfish acts. One could say that I don't dispute the word selfish in your sense as much as I the think it involves a tendency to downplay the real and different circumstances in favour of a found common denominator in language. That is our different interests or view showing p again I guess. :yep:

The case with the girl is instructive, as you paint her part in it as to be almost foolish. It's like she somehow made a simple mistake or some unsound reasoning, and then decided to kill herself.
Do we even now if she was already suffering from a depression? If she did that changes quite a lot. Anyone that has been dealing with a depressed persons selfishness, or know how delusions can enter the life of the depressed, will understand what might have happened here in a much better way. And those that don't have that experience could learn something useful, compared to be showed that this was yet another case of selfish suicide, as by definition, and also one which can't be justified because it is about avoiding shame.
Shame is a very strong factor in depression, so when spotting shame in a lot of cases, one should perhaps raise the awareness about how depression works rather than showing how shame fits with selfishness. That would mean making it clear that this shame and selfishness is out of the ordinary. It is something that often comes close to delusion, and delusions in this sense are not a result of shallow thinking, false impression or bad judgement on the depressed persons part. As will be very clear if you try to argue about the issue with a person suffering a severe depression. There is nothing wrong at all with their reasoning powers, rather the opposite as the thinking of the problems often go hyperactive. It's just that they draw another conclusion. That is extremely frustrating and sad at the same time. It is indeed a sickness of the self, but perhaps not a condition that is best described as selfish behaviour, although literally possible.


Indeed, my belief that this is the majority is anecdotal at best - I'm intellectually honest enough to admit that. However, your belief that it is not the majority is equally anecdotal, if that is indeed what you believe.

I'm sorry, but that is specifically what you did. You said, "If something is beneficial it means you get something out of it, a profit, a good feeling or better treatment."

In no language is that the definition of beneficial. Sure, in some cases it FITS the definition, but you leave out the fact that the word is based upon a perception of favorability and instead substitute what YOU see as favorable as an absolute.The thing is that beneficial and selfish can be mutually exclusive. As such, selfishness does not neccessarily mean beneficial. Considering that we're discussing what *I* meant by the term "selfish", it would seem prudent to allow me to explain how I meant it.Hmm, I would think that if something fits the definition, it is a valid way to reason? You do it yourself with suicide, the definition of suicide is not selfish behaviour. (As a bit of irony dictionaries also give a definition of suicide as the ruining of one's own interests... ;)) Don't you think it is of importance that the dictionary show the very word advantage both in connection to both selfish Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/selfish) and beneficial Link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beneficial)? Of course the use of the word is based on a subjective perception of what is beneficial, as an example I mentioned profit, good treatment and emotional well being. (I did not put these examples up as absolutes.) Those are very different sorts of beneficial things which certainly could be seen as an advantage for a person, but also as something a suicide actually precludes. As I understand it your way of getting through with the act of a suicide being mostly selfish, insulated from the results of the act, rely quite a bit on putting up death as an interest to itself, rather than conclude that the result of a suicide itself pose problems to this way of reasoning, both for the suicidal and for the survivors. But I agree this is by now a quite technical question and a bit moot... :know:

I couldn't agree with you more, but......one must first attempt to understand an argument before countering it. We face a situation where there really aren't any statistics, and right or wrong, to back either of us up. Therefore we are left with anecdotal evidence in support of what we believe.

I agree with you that there are some people who commit suicide for justifiably selfish reasons. My contention however, is that the majority of suicides are for reasons unjustified, and specifically relate to the subject sparing themselves shame.

My thought process is this: the teenager who would kill themself over being considered unpopular at school will likely respond far better to an intense stigma associated with killing themself than any other method. So many suicidals justify their action by the rationale of "I'll show them" that I believe many can be prevented simply by saying "you'll show them, what? That you're a selfish idiot?".I strongly disagree with that approach. It all relies upon the idea that you somehow can make the person to "wake up". There is very real risk that your "selfish idiot" will be directly incorporated with the persons self perception and fear of shame. Your approach probably could work before anyone is suicidal. But we already have a stigma like that in society, so what to do with people that has moved past that point already? More of the same medicine that didn't work in the first place?

It's all good. Honestly, it's common knowledge that I love using the "quote" style of debate. Furthermore, I can get pretty intense and nasty with my arguments, although I do try to only do that in response to others (albeit, you start it I try to fire back ten times as hard). However, this isn't one of those discussions because we both believe that suicides cover the spectrum of motivations - the difference seems to lie in what we believe constitutes the majority. As neither of us can prove it one way or another, there's no point in being overly contentious regarding the subject. :|\\I like a good debate, especially when the other guy makes it difficult for me which you certainly have in the last few postings. The challenge is to both learn something about yourself and from the other person, and at the same time keep digging at things that can be quite difficult. A real open discussion should preferably have changed both sides a bit afterwards, although one must of course never admit it, like that I'm now looking up every bloody word in the dictionary. :salute:

porphy

[Platapus]

10 points to anyone under 30 who knows what movie this is from without googling it...


What is interesting about this song is that the lyrics were written by a 14 year old. :yeah:

[August]

What is interesting about this song is that the lyrics were written by a 14 year old. :yeah:

Did s/he commit suicide?

[Platapus]

:)

You trapped me John


Was that another reference to the book? :yeah: :know:

[Platapus]

Did s/he commit suicide?

No but he earned over a million dollars while his father only earned about 70,000 for the related effort. :up:

[August]

Was that another reference to the book? :yeah: :know:

Yeah but it was Painless and no Poles were harmed in the making of it! :D

[Platapus]

Yeah but it was Painless and no Poles were harmed in the making of it! :D

Groan, That pun was not painless. :salute:

[Aramike]

real open discussion should preferably have changed both sides a bit afterwards, although one must of course never admit it, like that I'm now looking up every bloody word in the dictionary.:know: