Talk:Philosophy of suicide

Intro
Why does the introductory paragraph start out as a summary of the issue, and then suddenly tell us about one particular philosopher's views on the topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.50.19 (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
This articile is the very definition of NPOV. Consiering the nature of the topic ( who knows, it might actually lead someone to suicide). I recomend we ammend it urgently.

I disagree, philosophically there are thought experiments that show possible reasons for suicide as a viable action... Not the least of which is the case of a prisoner in a Nazi death camp who knew he faced immanent death in a gas chamber, who cut his own throat with a shard of glass with the intent to end his life. He thought it would be better to have control over it than to be killed by someone else. The kicker is that he was found by a guard before he bled to death and sent to a hospital where he was treated, and was subsequently released to go free. The war had ended while he was in the hospital. So if he hadn't tried to commit suicide, he would have faced certain death. I don't think philosophy disputes the negative aspect of the mental disorders that usually cause suicide, so perhaps this article is needlessly tagged as NPOV. Philosopher Torin 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also you assume what is in discussion in the article. If it is morally right, or at least permissable, for an individual to commit suicide then the article leading someone to commit suicide would be a good thing, or at least acceptable, and no ammendment would be needed - aside from some general clarification. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wireless99 (talk • contribs) 15:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Apoptosis and evolution
Please leave my Apoptosis argument intact, thank you. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Check out the apoptosis Wiki page and talk page for more information on why cells engage in programmed suicide or self-termination. Environmental stress and infection are some of the factors, there are many more.

Natural Selection
Should the view of suicide as a form of Natural Selection be included in this or any related articles? It can be percieved as (beyond valid or invalid) a logical, philosophical or biological problem, and I do believe this is a topic that requires at least some debate.68.198.120.115 01:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can give a reference to a philosopher who wrote on this, it can be included. -- C mon 07:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletions
I deleted the bit on Japanese suicides because it wasn't really relevant. If more were added (i.e a philosophical analysis of suicide and honour) then maybe it could be put it.

I would like to see more mention of cultural antagonism to suicide as, on the whole, it does seem to just come down on the pro-suicide point of the balance. Perhaps something to encourage the reader to explore the notion that thoughts of suicide are symptomatic of a cause rather than a cause in itself.

- This is because the traditional view of suicide is one of religious immorality. Philosophy wants to at least explore the reasoning, and if it isn't very good, reject it. If philosophers don't want to advocate suicide they will (or should) come up with good arguments... and they do. Philosopher Torin 23:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree, this article is simply not within the meaning of the term "philosophy". PT's comments are correct -- standard BabyPhi lecture material, in fact.

In fact, a(n admittedly quick) look at many Wikipedia articles on aspects of suicide suggest the whole set of articles needs to be excised and replaced. They are all over the place, with no unifying thread, really. Different perspectives on the various aspects of suicide appear to be mixed indiscriminately. A strong bias against suicide seems generally in the ascendant, with no real exploration of this; the roots of this bias are part of any decent philosophical discussion. At the same time, any discussion has to get beyond such merely sociological, anthropological and psychological discussion, since none of them can possibly go beyond description to explanation.

The reference lists in the various articles are pathetic. Discussion of suicide, in EuroAmerican culture alone, goes back -- what? 2300 years at least? The "philosophical views" article doesn't even have a list of references; the list in the general suicide article is apparently derived from the reading list for a course in counseling (inherently biased).

In short, bag the whole lot, or at least the more general articles, then let's see if there are some people who will take on this -- agreed: Herculean -- chore properly? --djenner 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
This needs cleanup and expanding. It's obviously biased at the moment. It needs more from philosophy greats such as Plato and Socrates and other classical philosphers. Some info can be obtained here. Also, History of suicide contains some philosophy info that can probably be transferred here. Other suggestions and to-dos are welcome. Gflores Talk 20:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just added a couple of views of Aristotle. They may not be all Aristotle's views. There may be qualifications/exceptions, I don't know for sure yet. There is also a suicide in antiquity wikipedia page. The current philosophy of suicide page is quite incomplete/uncomprehensive in my view. Aristocrat00 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Format change
What do you guys think about changing this article into sections of philisophical thought instead of just for and against, because some views are not that simple. For example, one section would be Utilitarian's view on suicide, another Kantian view, etc. Kind of like the Religious views of suicide. This could be done in the move, which I support by the way. --Joe Jklin 15:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Since there was no opposition I'm going ahead with the change. Feel free to fix it up.--  Joe  Jklin  (  T   C  ) 06:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Camus
I'm pretty sure that the text quoted is not from Camus' novel L'Etranger but from one of his theoretical works, perhaps The Myth of Sisyphus.

Recurrences?!
What's the point of mentioning certain person's opinions under "Views of individual thinkers", while having the *exact* texts elsewhere in the article as arguments?? (cp. Schopenhauer, Goethe under Idealism, Jean Améry under Liberalism with the text about them under "Views of individual thinkers") -WhiteShark 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hegesias
Can someone write something about Hegesias and his philosophy ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.20.252 (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The sections on Utilitarianism and Nihilism are particularly usefless in this article. Can I suggest there removal or more elaboration. TY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.197.209.54 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Biological
Does philosophy ever commented on biological suicides, like PCD in that natures favors things to be reuseable than to repair. I ask this, because I think biological suicide is probably very modern findings and I don't this information was known back in the past, so probably had no philosophical commentary or viewpoints. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 05:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical views of suicide → Philosophy of suicide — "Philosophical views" is redundant. "Philosophy of suicide" is a much less awkward and much more widely accepted construction. —Neelix (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

John Mill
Hi. As far as I can see, John Mill does not mention suicide in On Liberty. Quite the opposite, he introduces the harm principle, according to which an individual can do whatever he wants as long as he does nit harm anyone else. Moreover, the quote talks only about slavery. Shall it be deleted? Where else DOES he write about suicide? Can someone clarify?Cosainsé (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I agree I dont think that 'disposing of his life' is necessarily refering to suicide in this paragraph; it can easily be read a only talking about slavery. Too much may be being read into the phrase "disposing if his life". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.3.80 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Ive gone ahead and made changes that reflect the ambiguity of the idea as it was previously- Ive deleted a few words from two sentences and added a few sentences and an extra paragraph. Ive left the idea that his ideas about slavery might be relevant in there- as it is an interesting point. But I think it is very unlikely he was talking about suicide for the reasons outlined in my additions.... its just not like Mill to not back things up fully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.3.80 (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I meant to mention that the only source I could find backing the view that Mill is talking about suicide in the quoted para was here https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7QCPAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=disposing+of+his+own+lot+in+life&source=bl&ots=C6BBr_-opx&sig=At-YZ8k-oCS-C8k1WVLKOSwf5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpqqud-IXTAhXsD8AKHazvCy4Q6AEIIDAC#v=onepage&q=disposing%20of%20his%20own%20lot%20in%20life&f=false Frankly it seems a biased interpretation of what he said in an antisuicide book... it may also be where thhe quote on Utilitarianism being anti-suicide came from. I dont think this interpretation of Mill is that coherent... it may be better simply to remove thesection altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.3.80 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of suicide - Reinforcement of them
It can also be read as "Background for the Intellectual Defence", given the applied ethics. The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? The point here is that people who commit suicides always pay the highest price and that the opposition stands back confounded and at loss of words. That they are overrun! There is a logical chain of thoughts here that goes through several arguments of entailment to make this happen. The references are: Cheers! 91.186.70.229 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Warburton, N., 2004, p. 21. The Basics - Philosophy, 4th ed. Routledge: New York The Problem of Evil. "...of the widespread practice of torture." and "...all examples of moral evil or cruelty: human beings inflicting suffering on other human beings..."
 * 2. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/violent-crime  FBI crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in USA, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
 * 3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-13877314  A news story that details the backlog of the ECtHR by "There is currently a backlog of 150,000 cases at the ECtHR in Strasbourg, and costs of taking a case there are high." and additionally, but only secondarily, "According to SCHR, that means: "The ECtHR is not and should not be seen as a substitute for the individual's right of access to a remedy from domestic courts in Scotland and the UK.""
 * 4. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/4/42/Crimes_recorded_by_the_police%2C_1998-2008_%281_000%29.png  Eurostat crime statistics. These are most relevant in order to explain that there is a good deal of crime in the World, this time in Europe, specifically, and that many people are likely to suffer under it, also those who get to escape more atrocities, more pains, i.e., those who suicide.
 * 5. http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/en/382.pdf  A WHO document mentioning a totalling number of "1 million people" who are gone, who have committed suicide. And this is back in 1999. I've added this one instead of using the (invalid) reference on Wikipedia by its "suicide numbers", although they are also based on numbers from WHO.

Proposed removal of content
“Too much should not be read into "disposing of his own lot in life" in the passage as this is not necessarily talking about anything other than slavery. Indeed, it would be odd if Mill had intended it to be about suicide but not explored the issue fully.”

There was nothing exceptional about the phrase until I read this part. The quoted passage fits within the overall theme and mood of the rest of the section. I’m just confused as to why this is was included. I don’t want to be the one to remove it yet in case Im missing something. UsersLikeYou (talk) 09:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The final quote in the article?
Firstly, I can’t find a source for it. Not even on Google.

I’ll be completely frank, I don’t think that is an actual quote, It reads as if it’s masquerading as one. UsersLikeYou (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)