Suicide Risk

[Flavus Aquila]

If you think someone is at risk of suiciding, do you do anything about it?

(What if you're mistaken? What if you don't want to get involved in that person's private life? Is there an obligation? Etc.).

 

[Sloe Djinn]

If you think someone is at risk of suiciding, do you do anything about it?

(What if you're mistaken? What if you don't want to get involved in that person's private life? Is there an obligation? Etc.).

Ask.
If it seems like they don't really want to die then maybe it's ok to assist. I wouldn't be worried about someone who wants to die with dignity in cases such as physician-assisted suicide.
If I'm mistaken, I say "My bad." A couple seconds of awkwardness may ensue.
If you don't want to get involved in their private life, you don't have to. You can refer them to someone who does want to be involved out of principle or because that's their job.
Any obligation is based only on societal norms or laws in relation to the profession. For example, a police officer would probably be obligated to intervene.

 

[wolly.green]

I don't believe in moral obligation, so no. You are not obliged to help; although this may reflect very poorly on your character.

 

[Jet]

It depends on too many factors.

Are you a mandated reporter? Is the suicide a good or bad thing? Will your failure to report be found out and cause issues for you? Do you agree with this person attempting to end their life or do you think they would be better off alive? What are the laws for committing a person in your state/country? Can you indirectly affect the situation and inform someone else without getting directly involved?

 

[the]

I believe people should be allowed to kill themselves if they wish. But I've never been in a situation to intervene.

 

[Soulfire]

Having been in this position and having been on the opposite end of it, i believe that death is a long term solution to a short term problem/emotion/feeling.

It's actually not even a belief: it is a fact.

If i hadnt called suicide helpline, this person would have died.

And right before leaving the door and being commited for two weeks, the person told me: thank you, you saved my life.

These words will stay with me forever.

Please, if you know anyone who is at risk of harming themselves, get them help because they will not seek it, they feel like the entire world is crumbling on top of them. They will feel like there is no other way out.

I didnt know what to do .,or if i should intervene but the suicide helpline helped me and they helped that person have a second chance at life.

 

[Faye]

I don't believe in moral obligation, so no. You are not obliged to help; although this may reflect very poorly on your character.

So you would not agree then that, for instance, if you were walking and saw a small child drowning in a bucket, you have a prima facie duty to help that child? Lets say you were the only one around to help the child and had no other duties that could potentially conflict with this one. That means that you could chose not help the child and nobody would know you chose to do nothing, so your 'character' is not at stake.

Most people would say we do have a prima facie duty to help the child not drown. What do you say?

 

[wolly.green]

So you would not agree then that, for instance, if you were walking and saw a small child drowning in a bucket, you have a prima facie duty to help that child? Lets say you were the only one around to help the child and had no other duties that could potentially conflict with this one. That means that you could chose not help the child and nobody would know you chose to do nothing, so your 'character' is not at stake.

Most people would say we do have a prima facie duty to help the child not drown. What do you say?

I would definitely help the child, no question about it. But only because I don't like suffering. I still do not think we have a moral obligation to help. Also, the idea of self evident truth is dangerous; I don't view such things favorably.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

I hope slant didn't get to you, @Flavus Aquila

 

[Faye]

I would definitely help the child, no question about it. But only because I don't like suffering. I still do not think we have a moral obligation to help. Also, the idea of self evident truth is dangerous; I don't view such things favorably.

Disliking suffering is a moral position. And why would a self-evident truth be dangerous?

 

[wolly.green]

Disliking suffering is a moral position. And why would a self-evident truth be dangerous?

I wouldn't consider my emotions a moral compass. I dislike promiscuous women, certain plants and anchovies. This does not mean that I think they are morally wrong. I dislike seeing my mother eat anchovies, but that does not mean I believe her actions are wrong.

Another way of seeing every day emotions is as a kind of genetic weapon; a solution to particular problems we were confronted with in our evolutionary past. Sometimes we come to understand these emotions as "morals". But viewed from this perspective, emotional morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry.

Self evident truth is dangerous because it is truth that is beyond question.

 

[Faye]

I wouldn't consider my emotions a moral compass. I dislike promiscuous women, certain plants and anchovies. This does not mean that I think they are morally wrong. I dislike seeing my mother eat anchovies, but that does not mean I believe her actions are wrong.

Another way of seeing every day emotions is as a kind of genetic weapon; a solution to particular problems we were confronted with in our evolutionary past. Sometimes we come to understand these emotions as "morals". But viewed from this perspective, emotional morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry.

Self evident truth is dangerous because it is truth that is beyond question.

I just do not believe you are truly nihilistic. Saying you do not believe in moral obligation would suggest as much (since it is a nihilistic position), and so does the idea that "morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry".

If neither virtue nor deontology nor consequentialism will do it for you, then it is beyond me how you function in daily life since meaning is utterly impossible. At the very least, you are describing a sort of hedonistic consequentialism above, which may or may not be wrong vis-a-vis virtue ethics and deontological ethics. It might be owed to evolutionary psychology or whatever, but it is still a sort of moral compass that grew out of our ancestors' interactions with the natural environment and each other. It is the product of our species emerging from an ecological system.

I guess I am just tired of this disingenuous post-modern position that is so popular these days. A lack of teleology or absolute authority to provide for a moral code does not mean such a thing does not exist. The "I do not believe in moral obligation" stance is itself a moralistic position; it just effectively relocates the moral compass to the individual and their innate sense of morality that emerges as a result of their biology and the ecosystem. Why would that be sophistry? We can rip on deontology or virtue ethics all day, but that does not remove the fact that we are necessarily moral actors. I think that we cannot avoid having a sense of virtue or deontology as well if we are capable of rational thought. No rules is a rule that effectively says I make the rules, and no virtue is a virtue that makes me responsible for what is and is not virtuous. The absence of belief in moral obligation is itself a moral obligation that you chose as a rational actor.

And why should there not be any truth beyond question? It is a self-evident truth that the 3 sides of a triangle equal 180 degrees. Though I suppose you are talking about what is true moralistically. In that case, isn't the idea that there is no moral obligation self-evident, or is there some sort of teleology that makes it so.... such as the idea that ""morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry".

 

[Faye]

My position when it comes to suicide (with the exception of people who have terminal illnesses seeking physician assisted suicide- because that is a more complicated debate) is that a person who is about to commit suicide is equivalent to someone who is drowning. It is not their fault, usually the product of mental illness or other difficult circumstances. At the very least, you should refer a person in this position to necessary resources to help save them. They would not be telling you about it if it were not an actual risk. So as far as obligation goes, it is the same as someone who is drowning. Most ethical theories would suggest that you should help someone in this position. Kant is a notable exception (he actually said people who are suicidal and who attempt suicide should be treated like animals and hunted for sport), but I think he could have been convinced otherwise fairly easily with knowledge of contemporary psychiatry.

I have spent enough time thinking about it and talking to people who are suicidal or who have attempted it. I always try to help them out of it.

 

[wolly.green]

I just do not believe you are truly nihilistic. Saying you do not believe in moral obligation would suggest as much (since it is a nihilistic position), and so does the idea that "morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry".

If neither virtue nor deontology nor consequentialism will do it for you, then it is beyond me how you function in daily life since meaning is utterly impossible. At the very least, you are describing a sort of hedonistic consequentialism above, which may or may not be wrong vis-a-vis virtue ethics and deontological ethics. It might be owed to evolutionary psychology or whatever, but it is still a sort of moral compass that grew out of our ancestors' interactions with the natural environment and each other. It is the product of our species emerging from an ecological system.

I guess I am just tired of this disingenuous post-modern position that is so popular these days. A lack of teleology or absolute authority to provide for a moral code does not mean such a thing does not exist. The "I do not believe in moral obligation" stance is itself a moralistic position; it just effectively relocates the moral compass to the individual and their innate sense of morality that emerges as a result of their biology and the ecosystem. Why would that be sophistry? We can rip on deontology or virtue ethics all day, but that does not remove the fact that we are necessarily moral actors. I think that we cannot avoid having a sense of virtue or deontology as well if we are capable of rational thought. No rules is a rule that effectively says I make the rules, and no virtue is a virtue that makes me responsible for what is and is not virtuous. The absence of belief in moral obligation is itself a moral obligation that you chose as a rational actor.

And why should there not be any truth beyond question? It is a self-evident truth that the 3 sides of a triangle equal 180 degrees. Though I suppose you are talking about what is true moralistically. In that case, isn't the idea that there is no moral obligation self-evident, or is there some sort of teleology that makes it so.... such as the idea that ""morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry".

Saying you do not believe in moral obligation would suggest as much (since it is a nihilistic position), and so does the idea that "morals are nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrated sophistry".

I said we don't have a moral obligation to help. Not that morals don't exist. And I didn't mean that ALL morals are "nothing more than a bit of genetically orchestrates sophistry, only those morals that are considered self evident.

A lack of teleology or absolute authority to provide for a moral code does not mean such a thing does not exist

I completely agree. Again, I never said I don't believe in morals. I only said I don't believe we have a moral obligation to help.

we cannot avoid having a sense of virtue or deontology as well if we are capable of rational thought.

Yup, I also agree with this. Morality is nothing more than a conviction about what one aught to do.

And why should there not be any truth beyond question? It is a self-evident truth that the 3 sides of a triangle equal 180 degrees

I actually studied mathematics and know that these truths are not self evident. This particular truth is derived from a set of premises that we "assume" are true. But they are not beyond question. In either case, I don't believe there are truths beyond question because its possible to be wrong. And the only way to know whether you are wrong (or right) is if you bother to question.

Only some morals, like fear and disdain for foreigners, are examples of genetically orchestrated sophistry. This does not mean ALL morals are just sophistry, some can be reached through rationality and reason. Only those emotions that are taken as self evident I consider sophistry.

 

[Soulfire]

@Dragon
Yes yes yesss..thank you for being so articulate! Sadly most people will not understand this until they are personally confronted with this type of scenario.

You express things that I find myself unable to and just reading your posts gave me a glimmer of hope in humanity

 

[wolly.green]

My position when it comes to suicide (with the exception of people who have terminal illnesses seeking physician assisted suicide- because that is a more complicated debate) is that a person who is about to commit suicide is equivalent to someone who is drowning. It is not their fault, usually the product of mental illness or other difficult circumstances. At the very least, you should refer a person in this position to necessary resources to help save them. They would not be telling you about it if it were not an actual risk. So as far as obligation goes, it is the same as someone who is drowning. Most ethical theories would suggest that you should help someone in this position. Kant is a notable exception (he actually said people who are suicidal and who attempt suicide should be treated like animals and hunted for sport), but I think he could have been convinced otherwise fairly easily with knowledge of contemporary psychiatry.

I have spent enough time thinking about it and talking to people who are suicidal or who have attempted it. I always try to help them out of it.

Yup, that feeling of hopelessness is awful and suffocating at best. And to be sure, there is nothing wrong with empathy and wanting to help, these things will enrich all of our lives and make the world a better place. But this does not mean that we have a moral obligation to help those in need.

 

[Free]

If you think someone is at risk of suiciding, do you do anything about it?

(What if you're mistaken? What if you don't want to get involved in that person's private life? Is there an obligation? Etc.).

Because of my profession, I am mandated by law to report and even place someone under what's called a 5150, or involuntary confine, to be further evaluated by a psychiatric medical professional if I believe the person is at risk. Beyond that, absolutely I feel morally obligated to intervene even if that weren't the case. Physician assisted suicide is a whole other ball game, and even if I feel the need to intervene for whatever reason, of course I wouldn't.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

So you would not agree then that, for instance, if you were walking and saw a small child drowning in a bucket, you have a prima facie duty to help that child? Lets say you were the only one around to help the child and had no other duties that could potentially conflict with this one. That means that you could chose not help the child and nobody would know you chose to do nothing, so your 'character' is not at stake.

Most people would say we do have a prima facie duty to help the child not drown. What do you say?

That's a very useful principle.

To me, a suicidal person is Prima facia in a dangerous mental state. Regardless of whether a person be planning to kill themselves, or anyone else, the mental state of the person requires both temporary restraining and assistance.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Yup, that feeling of hopelessness is awful and suffocating at best. And to be sure, there is nothing wrong with empathy and wanting to help, these things will enrich all of our lives and make the world a better place. But this does not mean that we have a moral obligation to help those in need.

Perhaps, not looking at it as a moral precept is the issue.

Intervening would seem to be a reasonable action... and being reasonable is a meta-moral precept. Ignoring the situation, or failing to act is less perfectly reasonable imo.

 

[wolly.green]

Perhaps, not looking at it as a moral precept is the issue.

Intervening would seem to be a reasonable action... and being reasonable is a meta-moral precept. Ignoring the situation, or failing to act is less perfectly reasonable imo.

Maybe. To me, choosing not to help in this situation is not morally right or morally wrong. It just doesn't fall within the purview of morality.