The first major flaw in your argument is highlighted in this sentence.
Suicide is one way to detect illness in our species, without a doubt.
But your argument relies on it being the *only *way to detect illness in our species. It proceeds from that assumption, and as such it proceeds from an hasty induction. There are plenty of ill people who never commit suicide. there are plenty of desperately unhappy people who won’t commit suicide. There are many, possibly billions, of people who will never commit suicide because of religious convictions. Doesn’t matter how unhappy or ill they are.
As such your argument is based upon a provable logical fallacy. One we change “Suicide is where we detect illness in our species” to “Suicide is where we *might *detect illness in our species”, your argument is no longer cohesive.
Do you accept that it is perfectly possible to have a society, say within a monastery, of devout Catholics who all converted to Catholicism of their free will while of sound mind, all entered the monastery of their free will while of sound mind, and who are all desperately unhappy and mentally ill, yet who would refuse to commit suicide for religious reasons?
And do you concede that it is possible to have a population of the same size and demographic makeup outside the monastery who are, on the whole, much more happy, yet with with a much higher suicide rate because they have no religious or ethical objection to suicide?
If you don’t accept those two scenarios as plausible, can you explain why?
And if you do accept them as plausible, then you must accept that your premises are flawed. It is possible to have societies with equal freedom of choice where suicide rates are lower amongst the less happy society. And this is precisely because of the choices made by the individuals.
The only way I can foresee you countering this is arguing that someone who freely chose to embrace a religious philosophy that forbids suicide is not truly free. This would, of course, be a True Scotsman. Freedom to decide *not *to do something is a necessary requisite for freedom to exist in any meaningful sense.
And of course, once we accept that suicide fails to detect illness in some societies, then we are forced to concede that it may fail to detect illness in *all *societies. At that stage, you will need to present some evidence that suicide is a reliable metric for detecting illness. Otherwise your are simply begging the question. And I doubt that you can provide evidence to that suicide predicts rate of illness.
And this sentence highlights the next flaw in your system,. which is that it is, at heart, a false dilemma.
The members of the Heaven’s gate cult chose not to continue. But they didn’t do it as a vote *against *this system. They did it as a vote for the next system. There is no evidence that the members of this cult were in any way unhappy. There is no evidence that any conceivable societal “improvement” would have prevented their suicide. These people were not in any sense voting against this system. They were simply voting for an alternative that could only be reached through death. Unless your are proposing that a society could be engineered to produce the paradise-like conditions and alien contact that the people were voting for, then this one example falsifies your claim that when someone doesn’t continue they are voting against this system.
And once again, once we concede that suicide is note a vote against the system in one society, then we must accept that it may not be a vote against the system in any society. And once again, you will need to produce evidence for your position.
And ultimately, this si what will kill your position. You are attempting to argue from a purely logical basis. But that requires that all your premises are universally true. As soon as *one *of your premises have been shown to be false in even *one *instance, you then need to produce argument to prove that they are not false in every instance. And then your argument will collapse because you will need to provide facts and figures which, of course, you can not have.