You said this,
Sorry, I was confused because I thought you meant 'moral obligation' in general as opposed to a specific moral obligation.
Suicide Risk
- Thread starter Flavus Aquila
- Start date
You said this,
Sorry, I was confused because I thought you meant 'moral obligation' in general as opposed to a specific moral obligation.
I would suggest just hanging out with them (pardon the pun) and seeing how they are. If you get to chatting about deep things then asking what the Samaritans call 'the suicide question' might feel right. It's usually along the lines of 'have you had the thoughts?' then, if yes, 'have you made a plan?' and, if yes, 'how close are we to actually going through with it?'
If you're concerned, maybe they've at least done a bit of ideation (which is not the end of of the world) in which case it might help to talk things through but know when you're out of your depth and point them on to a suicide helpline if need be.
If you're concerned, maybe they've at least done a bit of ideation (which is not the end of of the world) in which case it might help to talk things through but know when you're out of your depth and point them on to a suicide helpline if need be.
There is not a single concept of morality. Your system of morality does not contain the precept of assistance, which is at odds with most moral systems.
Fortunately, no one must adopt one moral code, or another... but in this context, the precept of assistance is not defective in itself, but simply not a part of every code.
Would you in principle accept assistance?
Aka. Prudent and informed judgement; not precipitous, or without evidence of the mental state.
A good point.
If circumstances don't permit a more informed judgement about the person's mental state, would you err on the side of having to assume the better, or worse in terms of intervening?
What exactly do morals have to do with a single situation where someone is about to kill themselves?
Asking for their choice of tool in a calm manner is a reaction. Asking them to step down and offering them a hand is a reaction. IMHO, a person reacts, walks away, or tells them to jump.
Last edited:
What would I do? It's never come up so I don't know. If it wasn't clear, I'd probably assume they're not going to end their life that night. However, being a bit too perky is a sign that someone has decided to end it so that's a warning sign. If drink or drugs are involved I'd be concerned about an impulsive decision but it'd really depend on how the conversation before had gone and if we'd talked frankly about suicide at all.
You were partially right. I just think obligation is the wrong word. Instead, its helpful to recast this question in the following way: Is it morally wrong to not do what is morally right, can there be retribution (some form of non physical punishment) for the man that chooses not to do what is morally right? I think not in both cases because actions are not always either morally right or wrong.
Now can there be retribution for the man that chooses to do what is morally wrong? Yes, absolutely!
Your system of morality does not contain the precept of assistance
No it doesn't. I think this idea is quite harmful. But that's a subject for another time.
the precept of assistance is not defective in itself,
I completely disagree with this. But again, another topic.
Would you in principle accept assistance?
Yes. I would give it as well? But what does this have to do with anything?
Also, I'm not a moral relativist. I believe there is such thing as an objective morality; a morality that is independent of the mind. And believe it is possible to be wrong about what you think is morally right. However, that does not mean that a moral code has to be absolute; this is not what objective means.
The question I answered was about morality. I don't understanding anything else you said.
There's no critique implied... I find practical questions help me understand the position, more than descriptive ones.
What about dilemma situations... where one is confronted with a pressing choice? Do you think that some situations can arise, where one is presented with a choice that takes precedence over other choices?
Eg. Going for a swim, to practice your backstroke... and encountering someone drowning: does that situation interrupt the original action/intention? Is the consideration of assisting/continuing practice optional?
If by optional you mean that it is not morally wrong to continue practice, then yes. That is an option.
I wasn't asking about the morality of the choices, but whether you think that some situations force a decision (yay, or nay; good/bad/neither).
So what matters is whether or not some outside force might take punitive measures against someone for choosing not do so whatever is deemed morally correct behavior? Or are we including the ways in which people sometimes punish themselves when they feel they have done wrong?
Yes, in a way. What matters is that there are such things as amoral actions, and choosing not to help is amoral. Also no, I don't want to include feelings since they are subjective and I think morals are objective.
So if choosing not to help someone who is about to commit suicide is amoral, what would be immoral or moral then? Like can you give me examples of situations where morality applies?
I've found that the following has help me to remain consistent. But by no means do I take them as foundation.
Any action that deliberately harms another human is morally wrong.
Any action that deliberately benefits another human is morally right.
It can be difficult to decide which of the above criteria any particular action falls into. That is, it can be difficult to decide whether an action was intended to harm or intended to benefit, but this does not matter. Obviously an action can fall into both categories, in which case the beneficial intention can be ignored (since I don't think it is ever right to punish one for acting morally) and the harmful one investigated.
What about you?
Last edited:
@wolly.green
But wouldn't saving a person from dying (such as someone on the verge of suicide) deliberately benefit that person, hence making it morally right (according to what yo just said)? We could also say that neglecting them when they cry out to you in pain (i.e. communicating their intent) is deliberately harming them.
I think there are reasons to help them from all of the major ethical orientations. It would be virtuous to do so according to the philosophies of Christianity, Buddhism, etc. We also have a duty to help them vis-a-vis the categorical imperative or something similar. Finally, there are numerous good reasons to help the person from a consequentialist perspective, even if you wanted to make the explanation based in evolutionary psychology- something like generalized reciprocity. You help that person, they help another person, and so on.... and the world becomes a better place, which ultimately benefits you in return.
On a more personal level (still consequentialism), I do not think I could live with myself if I took no action and let someone die like that without doing anything. I have thought about suicide almost every day for about 15 years now, and so letting someone do it without trying to help them would basically be admitting to myself that suicide is an acceptable course of action- that the principle of suicide itself has validity.
Suicide has to be invalid. It would hurt me too much to let it be otherwise.
But wouldn't saving a person from dying (such as someone on the verge of suicide) deliberately benefit that person, hence making it morally right (according to what yo just said)? We could also say that neglecting them when they cry out to you in pain (i.e. communicating their intent) is deliberately harming them.
I think there are reasons to help them from all of the major ethical orientations. It would be virtuous to do so according to the philosophies of Christianity, Buddhism, etc. We also have a duty to help them vis-a-vis the categorical imperative or something similar. Finally, there are numerous good reasons to help the person from a consequentialist perspective, even if you wanted to make the explanation based in evolutionary psychology- something like generalized reciprocity. You help that person, they help another person, and so on.... and the world becomes a better place, which ultimately benefits you in return.
On a more personal level (still consequentialism), I do not think I could live with myself if I took no action and let someone die like that without doing anything. I have thought about suicide almost every day for about 15 years now, and so letting someone do it without trying to help them would basically be admitting to myself that suicide is an acceptable course of action- that the principle of suicide itself has validity.
Suicide has to be invalid. It would hurt me too much to let it be otherwise.
But wouldn't saving a person from dying (such as someone on the verge of suicide) deliberately benefit that person, hence making it morally right
Well yes, but this does not imply I have a moral obligation to help. Anyway, most of what you said makes good sense to me; except that we have a duty to help.
Suicide has to be invalid. It would hurt me too much to let it be otherwise
Agreed. Suicide is awful. I think its despicable when Social Darwinist reduce suicide to "survival of the fittest". Personal tragedies like this are always a testament to how much we as human still have to learn.
I was raised believing to "not take thought what I will say" in certain situations. I believe it was meant to mean "I would be given the words to say" or "I would be lead by the spirit". Over the years, this has basically taken over my actions. Whether my subconscious analyzes situations the way they are being spoken of here, or not, does not matter to me.
As kids, we were all swimming across a swift river one at a time...just to be doing it. The guy in front of me started going up and down and panicking. He was drowning. I did not know how to save someone swimming, but swam right out there to him anyway. He grabbed around my arms and wrapped his legs around me trying to crawl out of the water. I was a strong kicker underwater, so just kicked as hard as I could back in the direction I had come from. Every now and then a would kick hard and quickly to get a breath of air. When I made it back to the ledge, I asked why someone else didn't help me. He was drowning me. They said it looked like I had everything under control.
I did not have the luxury of thinking about it.
As kids, we were all swimming across a swift river one at a time...just to be doing it. The guy in front of me started going up and down and panicking. He was drowning. I did not know how to save someone swimming, but swam right out there to him anyway. He grabbed around my arms and wrapped his legs around me trying to crawl out of the water. I was a strong kicker underwater, so just kicked as hard as I could back in the direction I had come from. Every now and then a would kick hard and quickly to get a breath of air. When I made it back to the ledge, I asked why someone else didn't help me. He was drowning me. They said it looked like I had everything under control.
I did not have the luxury of thinking about it.