Andy of Comix Inc said:
Yes, but if you kill yourself, you'll never get a chance to.
I should explain, I think preventable human life is a loss. I don't mean to imply that it removes value, though - it is instead the absence of a value, of an asset. It might not directly take something existing from the world, but it takes something that DOESN'T exist - a hole, if you will, from which no good can come. I mean if everyone is flatlining, those dips are going to be noticeable, too.
And to be honest, suicide is probably most abhorrent because the only people it effects are the people left behind. I won't care if you step in front of a bus, it's true, but the bus driver and everyone on it might. The person who discovers your hanging corpse is going to actively have a much worse day because of that suicide. No parent wants to have to plan their child's funeral. Nothing there is added because of suicide, it is only taken away - value is not removed but value is certainly pulled away, shoved to the side, almost. Your "value" in being alive is that no-one has to deal with the event of your death. At the least.
I dunno, I mean really, the simple answer to this is that you should probably just try being empathetic instead of being a nihilistic downer all the time.
Why do people jump to insults so readily? I at least try to stay civil...
I've never understood why suicide is abhorrent while normal death is seen as border-lining a neutral act. The latter leaves us saying "oh well, it was his time, nothing could be done except a healthier lifestyle/learning not to pick fights/greater caution", while the former makes those "left behind" commenting that it's a horrible and disgusting selfish act. Then again, I'm getting the feeling my views on suicide will leave you somewhat offended so let's just stick with the topic.
So to sum up your view, the tragedy isn't a loss of value but rather loss of potential value. Using your logic, we should feel especially sad about the death of the young. Which granted, does happen. What doesn't happen is a universal view of what potential may lie and if that potential matters. Excluding friends and family since they did receive something of value from the decease (even children give social and mental value), complete strangers rarely have empathy beyond courtesy. I'm currently 22. This puts me in an interesting position where the majority would probably assume that any huge potential of doing something truly great is pretty much out the window since I haven't shown signs of getting anywhere near there. However, I still have potential of doing something that has a distinct impact in a good few eyes. Although I guess if you really wanted to be cynical you could say that the perception that an individual had potential is a mental value in it's self since it stirs up more faith in the individual and therefore in others to do great things. If you wanted to be incredibly cynical you could argue pretty well that the 27 Club is designed to create a legacy that is undeserving since it creates perceptions of potential that likely would of never been reached.
Fractral said:
Your parents? Your family? Anyone who you love? They should be worth a lot to most people, barring unfortunate circumstances, despite not being important to most people but you.
I can understand where you're coming from- heck, I feel the same way about people at school- but there is a difference between being unable to care about someone because you don't know them at all, and saying that them dying is a neutral event. I don't have to weep for someone's death to understand that it is a sad thing that they died.
But I suppose that's almost what you're saying.
It somewhat is, but I'll admit I do have a dark view on these things so it may be phrased in an alternative way. I think it doesn't help that I'll admit I've been treating death as a neutral thing in the discussion (and used rather cold language), when in reality it still has an effect on someone so it really isn't neutral for everyone. Even if it's a friend of a friend who has died, it's still not neutral because your friend is having to deal with it. Just the individual in it's self is probably not affecting you directly, only your friend's reaction, otherwise it wouldn't be a friend of a friend.
In terms of family and other loved ones, they still see some form of social, physical or mental value in me and I see value in them back. There is still a value thing going on and they've still achieved something. To most people, I doubt say talking about death in the family will garner sympathy of the deceased but rather sympathy for the person who has to deal with it.
People tend to weep for a death of someone they don't know typically out of courtesy or as memento mori. Those who are sad of someone they don't know's death for other reasons, to be blunt, tend not to be mentally stable. Then again, I may be forgetting other reasons. However, there is also a difference between weeping for someone who's died and weeping for those who have lost something of value.
