I noticed the debate on “Why do we try to stop people who are threatening suicide?” did not include a discussion of G.K. Chesterton and his quote,
“The man who kills a man kills a man.
The man who kills himself kills all men.
As far as he is concerned, he wipes out the world.”
I am new to this forum and will not be offended if there is no further interest in this topic.
Big Chesterton fan here. I like Chesterton. I like that quote. The source, for those who are interested, is chapter 5 of his book Orthodoxy, which can be read online here:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/orthodoxy.viii.html
The point being that if Al kills Bob, then All is selfishly refusing to share a universe with Bob, but if Al kills Al, Al is refusing to share a universe with anyone.
We stop people from committing suicide when we think they’re wrong. When things aren’t really that bad, when they’re depressed and irrational. We stop them, because we love them.
We don’t stop them in order to compel our company upon them. That would be selfish and very ugly.
We also don’t stop them – nowadays – when their choice is the right one, as when they are in the last stages of irreversible and horrible disease.
The point i obvious. And obviously stupid.
Even by that twisted logic, if All kills Bob, he’s also refusing to allowing anyone else to share a universe with Bob.
Interesting insight but that isn’t where I was going. Chesterton’s assessment of suicide reflected a concern that humanity’s future on Earth would be threatened if mankind refused to take an interest in his existence. Chesterton was expanding on the writings of Maimonides (which I can’t find at the moment) when Maimonides was concerned about the Jewish people committing suicide to escape the Roman cruelty in those times. He like Chesterton was worried that if enough people committed suicide it would threaten mankind’s existence.
Note that Chesterton died in 1936, when the world population was about 2 billion.
That would be 61 years before the United Nations released a massive report, the GEO4, that finds the planet in “dire environmental straits because humanity’s footprint [its environmental demand] is 21.9 hectares per person while the Earth’s biological capacity is, on average, only 15.7 ha/person.” The report gives details on past trends and future prospects on the atmosphere, pollution, food, biodiversity,
water and inequality in the world, and the picture is grim.
Had he known Earth, in 1997, would be at the “unknown points of no return,” and at serious risk due to “the dangers of climate change, water scarcity, dwindling fish stocks, and the pressures on the land and the extinction of species,” Chesterton might have written, The man who kills himself, as far as he is concerned, saves the planet.
[insert maniacal laughter] I’m taking you all with me! [stab, stab, stab…]
This is going to take longer than I thought.
[dark humor smiley]
Are you posting this from some weird time warp where its still 1997 (if so make surer David Bonior doesn’t get redistricted to hell and tell Clinton to kill OBL and use it as a bloody shirt for the midterms)? If not talk about 2015, not 1997. Since 1997, worldwide poverty has been massively reduced with tens of millions of people in China, India, Brazil, and other countries joining the ranks of the middle class. Virtually all human beings especially outside of the West are infinitely better off they were in 1936
Even in 1936, the idea that people committing suicide might actually pose a threat to the very survival of the species strikes me as a bit daft.
That isn’t the right approach. Not having kids…or just not having so many…that’s the right approach. Not letting things get to the point where every life is a threat: that’s wisdom too.
We haven’t reached “The Lifeboat Game” proportions of calamity, where someone might reasonably die in order to save everyone else.
If we ever do get to a situation that ugly and dangerous, I’m definitely jumping out of the lifeboat, to try to save others I love, and I know I won’t be alone. But nowadays? Naw: there’s still a lot of hope for the world, and each additional mind is a likely part of the solution.
A man who imprisons a woman, forces a woman to endure his physical presence.
A man who prevents a woman from killing herself, forces a woman to endure the phsyical presence of 6 billion people.
As far as she is concerned, she has no way to escape all of humanity.
Sorry, but this is trite nonsense.
Suicide is a personal choice. Trying to say that somehow suicide wipes out all humanity is exactly as ridiculous as saying that preventing suicide makes all of humanity into a sex slave and torture victim.
.
Well, that was 20 years ago. How are those things looking? Have they improved or gotten worse int he intervening decades? What does that tell you about the validity of such doomsaying reports?
Agree! And that man action would have nothing to do into others action since he acted based on his personal choice.
Absolutely agree about compelling our company on others, well made point.
The rest of the post draws a sharp line, and it’s a line many would agree with, but at least should be questioned IMO.
The line is between mental and physical pain. For mental pain you’re saying things “aren’t really that bad”, and we should prevent such people committing suicide. Physical pain OTOH can be that bad and so their choice is [potentially] the right one.
I think if we’re arguing on the basis of which is worse or which is curable then the line doesn’t naturally and conveniently fall between the mental and physical in this way, even if the two could be entirely separated.
What I mean is, some mental anguish is just as incurable, and truly horrible.
And when someone with an awful physical disease finally decides to press the button, that’s bound to be partly because of mental issues such as pride, fear etc that hypothetically they could get therapy for.
IMO a critical factor is likelihood to change their mind at a future time. If someone in their death spiral finds the situation hopeless and wants out, they’re unlikely to feel different about it in the future when their condition is likely to be even worse. But someone with various mental trauma, it’s much harder to say.
I disagree. There are plenty of people who argue that suicide is a selfish act because it makes the suicidee’s loved ones suffer and condemn people who comitted suicide for this reason. That’s basically “you should keep suffering so that we won’t”.
Chesterton’s assessment of suicide reflected a concern that humanity’s future on Earth would be threatened if mankind refused to take an interest in his existence.
I guess you agree G.K. Chesterton was brilliant but also a polemicist who frequently exaggerates or is unfair. From his book , Orthodoxy:
To anyone who’s trying to choose between killing me and killing yourself: don’t be selfish by killing me; be altruistic by killing yourself. I mean, if those are the only choices, that’s the nicest thing you can do for me – and if it’s a choice between killing yourself and, like, killing my whole family, I’m really hoping you’ll take one for the team, here.
If someone kills themself and I don’t try to stop them, my universe is not ruined. So I’m all for ignoring people who threaten it
One way to find the truth. No way back to tell the rest of us what is real. So far. I’m pretty sure that offing myself would be the end of this world; you included.
“And now I will destroy the world.”
– Cat’s Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut (it’s the phrase Bokononists say before they commit suicide)
OP’s quote makes me wonder if Chesterton may have been a practicing solipsist. Would explain some things.