So are you saying that people who are discomforted by a suicide are the selfish ones?
:dubious:
You can hold whatever opinion you like, but on a discussion forum, it’s likely to be challenged.
I don’t think anyone here disputes that suicides are caused by people being in great emotional pain, and that they cause emotional pain.
(Although I would suggest that for every suicide of note where it’s a parent, with lots of friends, successful job etc, there are many more where the person has put a lot of distance between them and others for some time and frankly no-one is going to feel anything like the pain the suicider was in)
The question is whether the fact others will feel hurt makes the act of suicide selfish. And I still say, unless the suicider is deliberately causing hurt, the answer is no.
By analogy, imagine I knew my appearance scared people. That doesn’t make it selfish to leave my house, especially if I’m doing all I can to minimize the fear I cause in others, such as covering up.
Yes, we all understand that.
We have no way of knowing what sort of pain a survivor will feel. Given that mental disorders sometimes appear to have a genetic component, and one suicide can trigger another, you may wish to re-think your statement.
You can’t kill yourself without causing pain to someone else. Most of them are coherent enough to know damn well they’re going to hurt people. Certainly, the ones throwing themselves in front of trains or jumping off a building in front of a crowd know they’re inflicting themselves on other people.
Killing yourself is not “minimizing” anything.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. How selfish must you be, to take someone else’s suffering and death and make it all about you…
Let me clarify: feeling discomfited by a suicide - fine and dandy, we can’t control how we respond emotionally to things.
Tell anyone who will listen how selfish the suicide is because it’s hurting you? Selfish as hell.
Jumping off of the above point, the survivors of a suicide are totally justified in a variety of emotions… devastation, anger, fear, whatever. But not forever. There comes a point where eventually, one must realize that what happened is about the person who killed themselves, not you. If, after decades, you’re still going on about your pain and how bitter you are, then that’s on you. The onus on us as humans is to do the things that help ourselves. It’s completely our responsibility to, again, understand their decision had to do with them and our choices, like remaining miserable, is solely up to us. Otherwise, that’s nothing more than prolonged blaming the victim.
Well if we’re going to be strict about it, we have no way of knowing what anyone will feel about anything.
But I can be reasonably sure that my buying a coffee is not going to cause someone to faint, and a potential suicider may, for whatever reasons, be reasonably sure that their death is not going to cause huge pain to anyone.
Why is that? Is it some law of the universe?
So even if my close relatives are already deceased, and I have no close friends, somehow…pain?
Those examples I’ve already said could be considered selfish (in two posts). The public suicides, however, are definitely in a minority. Hanging, sleeping pills etc are far more common.
And before you say it, killing yourself using these methods doesn’t necessarily imply your body being discovered by someone and scaring them; it depends on the circumstances.
When I attempted suicide, for example, I called an ambulance and warned them there’d be a body. I didn’t want anyone to see a dead body that was not used to seeing such things.
It was an example of where you might cause pain as a side-effect of doing something, and I was seeing if you’d bite the bullet and say that it is wrong in the analogy for the person to leave their own home.
But your answer is simply a mis-parse. In a suicide, the suicide itself is an action potentially causing unavoidable pain, and trying to minimize it would be doing whatever you can to minimize that pain. e.g. putting distance between you and others, taking care of all of your affairs, etc.
I think it can be selfish, but it isn’t inherently a “selfish” act, in the sense of looking out for yourself regardless of the cost to others. It depends a lot on the circumstances. It is inherently self-centered though.
For example, I wouldn’t consider a terminally ill person who commits suicide to necessarily be selfish.
However, an otherwise physically healthy person with small children and a dependent wife would IMO, be selfish to commit suicide.
Indeed. If we base an action’s “selfishness” on whether it hurts others, we may end up in a situation where there is no act that is not selfish.
Yeah, I don’t know if I’d put it as strongly as you initially did, because I don’t want to tell others how to feel about a tragedy close to them…but the way you clarified, I definitely agree.
This is fair.
Your story sounds very much like my step-sons. His mother and I had no idea that he was going through any angst or depression until we got the call in the middle of the night. In his addled state of mind, he probably had no idea that anyone cared whether he lived or died, but his death devastated those who loved him. That, to me, sounds like the definition of selfishness … but I voted for option 2.
Well, it’s not about the dead person anymore is it? They’re dead. Of course it’s going to be about me (the generic me) now. My feelings (pain, shame, anger, guilt etc) are still real and present…the dead don’t feel anything anymore.
Why shouldn’t those left behind talk about the pain? In my situation, my husband took his life when our kids were still young. They were devastated and hurt beyond measure. They blamed themselves for his unwillingness to continue living and it was absolutely imperative that they were able to express those feelings so that the burden of guilt was removed from them back to him. Suicide was his choice, not their responsibility.
For me, I just wanted to make him alive again so I could throttle him with my own bare hands for being so sublimely selfish. I was furious, and remained that way for a number of years.
Time of course has healed a lot of the pain, and we’re all more inclined to forgive his actions back then. But in those early days? Nope.
So while you may think that the survivors are selfish for their attitude toward the dead person, I believe it’s an essential coping mechanism. One life is gone, why should the death and misery be infectious and ruin how many others in the process?
kambuckta, that was very well put. I hope time has brought you some measure of healing.
I think I would categorize it as “forgivably selfish”, or maybe “not selfish by reason of insanity”. It’s absolutely a selfish act – the suicide is only capable of thinking of ending their own pain. But if they’re so desperate that this is their only way out, they’re obviously not thinking clearly enough to be categorized so simplistically as “selfish”.
I wonder if those in category 4 hold some Gothic Romance view of the subject, and would change their minds if it hit closer to home.
Skald the Rhymer
Least Original User Name Ever
Speaker for the Dead
Frank
gardentraveler
Revtim
lavenderviolet
Khadaji
Papsett
Tikki
picnurse
elelle
ShibbOleth
Marley23
Lissa
Tomcat
LouisB
hawthorne
Coldfire
ArrMatey!
TheLoadedDog
Ensign Edison
Ellen Cherry
35340
Delores Reborn
norinew
Missy2U
Anne Neville
Annie-Xmas
Improv Geek
jlzania
The Weird One
Were all so kind as to care when my wife killed herself in 2006, and treated me like a human being in a medium where everyone could easily be no more than pixels on a screen. No matter how painful and seemingly hopeless something that can happen might be, there’s always some measure of the milk of human kindness to redeem it. No matter what happens, that quality will always emerge and always endure.
I didn’t put a vote in the poll for this reason jsc1953. There’s too many variables, and every person who commits suicide does so for their own reasons. One cannot hold a person fully accountable for their action if they’re severely depressed, for example, so using a word like selfish is somewhat meaningless.
And for those diagnosed with a terminal disease, then their ‘selfishness’ is justifiable and I would imagine much easier for the survivors to come to terms with.
As mentioned upthread aways, selfish is such a negatively loaded word that it is damned hard to use with any confidence in a thread about suicide. But what, if not the ultimate act of selfishness, is choosing to end your life prematurely?
In some cases at least, an attempt to escape from a lifetime of pain and horror. And, in some cases, an attempt to stop inflicting that pain and horror on others.
I shared the story upthread about a person I knew who committed suicide because he was slipping out of control and his medication was no longer working to control his significant mental illness and he feared doing something dangerous. He was, essentially, one of those murder-suicide people who did it in the right order.
Selfish?
Maybe there’s a more basic question:
For those who consider suicide selfish, are you of the belief that all forms of mental illness are treatable and that a person can have a good, fulfilling life no matter what they might be suffering from?
jsgoddess, that’s why I questioned whether the word ‘selfish’ is appropriate because it’s so loaded towards the negative.
I guess I’m confused by your calling it the ultimate act of selfishness, then. Could you rephrase the sentence using the words you think are more appropriate?
All but a couple of responders here have been answering the OP in a way that suggests they see suicide as a singular type of individual action. My inclination is to disagree with such a simple perspective.
Just over a century ago, Emile Durkheim published a groundbreaking study that has become one of the fundamental building blocks of sociological inquiry: Suicide. Durkheim’s work did a lot to show that, contrary to prior understandings (and apparently currently widespread belief, as well) even suicide is not a strictly personal act; there is a tremendous amount of influence coming from the societal environment in which the perpetrator/victim is situated. Durkheim’s work boiled the act down to three major and one minor distinct types of suicide: Egoistic, Altruistic, Anomic, Fatalistic.
Durkheim saw each type of suicide as a symptom of an extreme imbalance between two major social pressures, integration of individuals into society and regulation of those individuals who are integrated.
[FONT=Courier New] Integration
Low High
<----------------|---------------->
Egoistic Altruistic
Regulation
Weak Strong
<----------------|---------------->
Anomic Fatalistic
Durkheim saw that Egoistic suicide came from a prolonged sense of social isolation – not necessarily being away from people, but being out-of-touch, disenfranchised, or discarded by society in general. A person could even have a few great relationships but still perceive that the community-of-importance (to that person) doesn’t accept or value his membership. An appropriate lyric would be from Santana, “I ain’t got nobody…that I can depend on. [No tengua nadie.]”
In contrast, Durkheim perceived that **Altruistic **suicides were fostered by too much integration. Suicide bombers and exceedingly self-deprecating individuals would share the idea that the world will be a better place after they are gone – either because of the act itself or because of the negative effects of the person’s presence. The Japanese practice of seppuku ritualized and formalized the act of altruistic suicide in the name of removing shame from the family/house/clan.
Durkheim concluded that **Anomic **suicide was the result of society’s inability to regulate a person’s behavior and expectations; to define a familiar role (economic, social, political, etc) for a person, or either fulfill or limit a person’s aspirations which, when unfulfilled, result in anger and depression directed at the self. This type of suicide seems to be the often-stereotyped and much maligned, “Woe is me: Nobody understands me (or even tries) and I can’t fit in anywhere.”
Also, Durkheim believed that **Fatalistic **suicide was extremely rare but was associated with too much external control, the type in which every attempt at independent expression or initiative or effort is strongly stifled to the point that a person feels there’s no longer any value in trying to do anything – even trying to live.
These are, of course, extreme characterizations that Durkheim was able to portray from his research and calculations. In real societies, the factors contributing to these distinct types of suicide – along with other factors of social life – are always intermingling and people who are driven to commit suicide are often succumbing to multiple influences that make their case, for instance, Anomic with shades of Egoism. They are not mutually exclusive and life is never as clear and concise as the pictures painted by textbooks and research conclusions.
Also, I think it’s important to emphasize that, ultimately, each of Durkheim’s characterizations relies heavily on the individual’s perception and interpretation of the situation regardless of whether society is or isn’t stifling or ignoring that person. A Canadian political leader could get caught in some kind of international scandal and, lacking any respect for the constituency [low sense of integration] would just go on to argue that his actions were justified or necessary [or dismiss the matter as unimportant] rather than reduce the nation’s shame by committing altruistic suicide. A Japanese student who failed her entrance exams might commit altruistic suicide in order to remove the shame from her family, or might ace the exams and commit anomic or fatalistic suicide because she feels the pressure to succeed in academics is destroying her need to be a Jpop star.
–G!
Durkheim (and this research in particular) is not without critics and modern revisions of the views. However, I still tend to agree very strongly with his findings.
[/FONT]