Hacker News Reader

Comment by underseacables | Hacker News Reader

Robert Lowell once said that if humans had access to a button that would kill us instantly and painlessly, we would all press it sooner or later.

I think this explains suicide better: For most, it’s an irrational act done in the spur of the moment.

What I think is more interesting is when suicide is done as a rational act with planning, and consideration for others.

View on HN

>> Robert Lowell once said that if humans had access to a button that would kill us instantly and painlessly, we would all press it sooner or later.

> I think this explains suicide better: For most, it’s an irrational act done in the spur of the moment.

Or it's rational, but we have some "irrational" mechanisms to prevent it that are best defeated by an impulsive act [1].

I don't actually believe that, but it's hard to argue against it under certain common sets of assumptions.

[1] e.g. from a rationalist/materialist perspective: suicide is to avoid/escape pain, and it also removes the pain of guilt for doing it and the pain of missing out on all future pleasures, etc. However, evolution has formed us to reproduce, no matter how painful the struggle is and how subjectively irrational it is to endure it.

"Robert Lowell once said that if humans had access to a button that would kill us instantly and painlessly, we would all press it sooner or later."

They'd push it even sooner if no one they cared about depended on them.

A lot of people stay alive simply out of a sense of responsibility towards others.

I think the storage space for our notion of 'others' or 'loved ones' is one extremely potent part of our minds. I am who I love somehow, my brain goes against destroying that bond.

“They'd push it even sooner if no one they cared about depended on them. A lot of people stay alive simply out of a sense of responsibility towards others.”

That would be me. I don’t want to be a burden to people.

One major challenge is that careful premeditation does not necessarily mean suicide is rational. There is a big crossover between people who consider suicide and people with disorders negatively impacting their cognition and decision making.

> people with disorders negatively impacting their cognition and decision making.

I think we should be really careful about how we think & talk about this.

There are a few situations (like psychotic breaks) where people fully believe delusions that, in a short time, they will reject. We can cleanly call those experiences "irrational."

On the other hand, people who experience long term depression literally experience the world differently in a way that we frequently cannot 'correct'[1]. Those people are not irrationally convinced that the world is hard to be in - they have brains for which things feel worse than for neurotypical brains. We can agree on all objectively measurable qualities of the world and their experience of that world will still be subjectively and consistently worse.

The conversations from the right-to-die movement can be useful here, as chronic pain and disease offer a lens through which to understand. We have all experienced physical pain, but we have not all experienced serious depression.

All I mean to say is that in the same way that someone with any chronic illness should have some choice in when and how they die, people who have chronic mental conditions should have the same right. We do not want to make the mistake of thinking that a person in a more complicated situation is compromised in some way - just that their world is more complex and we should take care to attend to the specifics of it.

[1] It's not clear what way of seeing the world is 'right' but I will use correct here even with its implication that neurotypical people live in the real world.

I totally agree that it is a very tricky subject, especially regarding depression. Having some experience with it myself, I would argue that irrational pessimism is a major feature of depression. For example, people cannot accurately asses actions and activities that would in fact make them happier if they were to follow through.

In this way, I think they are clearly distinct from those with terminal illness or chronic pain.

I agree that people should have the right to choose death, independent of the rationality of their decision. Ultimately, people are the owner of their body and steward of their life, even if they are imperfect and irrational ones. Taking autonomy away turns individuals and their body into the property of someone else.

I think there is some room for temporary holds and crisis management, but all such activities should be finite in duration.

> I agree that people should have the right to choose death, independent of the rationality of their decision

I don't think that that there is an ethical imperative to allow people to carry out irrational decisions. I was trying to say that, if someone with depression or another chronic mental illness decides they would rather be dead than alive, then after we determine that decision doesn't come from a passing[1] delusion, then we should give that desire the same weight we give to people with other chronic conditions. We all have the right to choose, after a time, that we do not want to live this way.

I also think that having a global standard for "rational" v.s. "irrational" is difficult enough that I think drawing strong lines tends to do more harm than good. So, in practice, I suppose I support people who "irrationally" wish to end their lives, but only due to the impossibility of determining what 'rational' means for each of our subjective perspectives.

[1] Whatever "passing" means - it is not an easy question.

I think we agree in principle. I think that defining rational vs irrational IS difficult, and therefore choose to draw the line such that it doesn't matter for a persons right to choose.

This addresses the fact that a severely depressed person may not be able to make the same objective assessments of the world that the chronically I'll can.

A severely and chronically depressed person might think "I have no chance at happiness" when in reality, they actually do. If they base their decision on this premise, they would be following faulty logic. My point is that they have a fundamental right to act based on their conclusions, even if they are wrong.

> My point is that they have a fundamental right to act based on their conclusions, even if they are wrong.

100% agree!

I think the fundamental issue comes down to whether the cause of the desire is fixable. If there's a fixable problem, fix it. If there isn't I think they should be allowed to (and even provided painless means to do so--say, a mask connected to a nitrogen tank.) Whether we agree with the reason or not I don't think enters into the picture.

And what if the person doesn't want to fix it? Do you force them?

This is the first question that comes to my mind. I’m on a long depression journey and when I was at my worst, I had absolutely no desire to fix things. I just wanted to stop hurting, or do things that helped me not feel the pain.

Looking back on that version of me, I wouldn’t really trust myself to make decisions about life and death.

But on the flip side, I know not all circumstances are equal, and so all I can conclude is that this is incredibly complicated and I don’t have the answer.

Someone can think about killing themselves for months or years before actually doing it.. are you suggesting that is irrational because there wasn't a plan or consideration of others?

The final act itself is either rational, or irrational. I think most people commit suicide as an irrational sudden decision. They may have thought about it, they may have planned about it, but I think there’s a clear delineation between someone who says screw it, and kills themselves, versus someone who plans and commits the act with thoughtful deliberation. To make it easier to understand, perhaps you might look at this between a person who sees a train coming and decides in that moment tk step in front of the train, and someone who takes a Final Exit approach at home.

The mystery is what is going through the persons mind at the moment of self execution.

edit: I used the wrong word to describe a final act.

(sorry to be that guy, just a useful FYI)

I think you may want "ultimate"? penultimate = second-to-last.

Ah! Thank you, you’re absolutely correct. I changed it to “final“.

Living can be irrational too. There are plenty of people who are completely miserable with no hope or plan to make anything better, but still choose to live out of pure fear of death.

There's always a conversation over whether suicide is rational, but no one thinks to ask if living is rational.

Rationality seems like an irrelevant term here. Desire for suicide is obviously subjective and has no objective answer. I doubt spur of the moment suicides are very common, although the 'an hero' kid and the one that misunderstood their robinhood debt come to mind. Most suicide is going to be premeditated to a large degree. How certain do the specifics need to be for it to be considered rational? I think that's grey. A lot of people point to studies showing people who survive suicide attempts often say it was a mistake, but these strike me as having an enormous survivor bias embedded in them (not on the initial attempt, but on additional more successful attempts subsequently). So long as an act isn't based on strictly false premises or mind altering substances, I'm inclined to say most are "rational" if such a term can be applied.

I've never been suicidal, but I've always felt that strong anti-suicide advocates, while strongly well intentioned, might not be fully reasoning out their belief systems. I think I'd greatly prefer to go out on my own terms in old age, without need for qualifiers like pain or disability.

Recognizing the time for your conclusion is a tropey act for old characters in fiction, and implies deep wisdom. But in real life we assume anyone feeling similar has lost their mind.

Anytime there is talk of suicide in this community I’ve always remembered heartbreaking final words of Bill Zeller. Didn’t know him personally, but I would consider his act a rational one. I do think suicide can be irrational, which comes down to heat of the moment. I’ve had a few friends commit suicide, and it’s a horrible thing to endure, but I understand. A persons choice to in their life should be theirs completely, but I hope it’s one that is done with a rational thought out purpose. Not a spur of the moment thing.

https://gizmodo.com/the-agonizing-last-words-of-programmer-b...

“All 29 people who survived their suicide attempts off San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge have said they regretted their decision as soon as they jumped.”

https://ennyman.medium.com/a-lesson-from-29-golden-gate-suic...

Sure most suicide attempts aren’t done this way but I think statistics like this showcase how many suicides are irrational on some level. If it was rational then you’d think they wouldn’t immediately regret it (unless the regret is irrational I guess).

Perhaps their regret is a significant contributor to their survival though.

Or perhaps they are only saying they regret it so they aren't thrown into a mental hospital. I wonder if there was a follow up on longterm survival.

Of 515 people prevented by police from jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge between 1937 and 1971, by the end of the 70s only 6% of them had committed suicide by other means.

Source: "Where are they now?" by Richard Seiden

Interesting, thanks!

Or perhaps having the experience itself ("I survived the jump") is a significant contributor to their not regretting it.

There could even be multiple mechanisms there: "turns out being that close to death is really scary," or "my survival means there is a higher power looking out for me," or "my life flashing before my eyes made me realize something about my life"...

I've seem the "29 people" statistic quoted a few times but I think it's more interesting to look at medical studies about how many people reattempt it after failing the first time:

"Nine out of ten people who attempt suicide and survive will not go on to die by suicide at a later date. This has been well-established in the suicidology literature. A literature review (Owens 2002) summarized 90 studies that have followed over time people who have made suicide attempts that resulted in medical care. Approximately 7% (range: 5-11%) of attempters eventually died by suicide, approximately 23% reattempted nonfatally, and 70% had no further attempts."

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survi...

>>>> Robert Lowell once said that if humans had access to a button that would kill us instantly and painlessly, we would all press it sooner or later.

In my view, firearms are close enough to this level of technology, to shed doubt on the hypothesis. I don't think everybody with a gun tries to kill themselves.

Suicide is not irrational in of itself. Facing 25-Life? Perfectly rational. Lost all your money and have no retirement? Still very rational. All you friends left you and you are completely alone to fend for yourself? Still rational.

America needs to get over itself that life needs to be lived until a natural death. Not everybody wants to further deal with the excessive burdens of life. Suicide, when not done in a spur of the moment decision, can be wholly rational. Wanting to live a garbage quality if life because society thinks it's weird to just end it to not suffer is some Catholic guilt being forced on everyone.

> All you friends left you and you are completely alone to fend for yourself? Still rational.

I don't think suicide is a rational response to that; I even think it's dangerous to frame it as any kind of 'rational' action to take in such a situation.

For the most part, I agree with you, and people should be free to choose their own death at any time for any reason (rational or otherwise), but "all your friends leaving you" may be something that can be changed. At the very least new friends can almost always be found. It wouldn't seem rational to me at least to end your life over that for most people. I can respect a person's right to make that choice in any situation, but I don't have to agree with it.

I'm not convinced there's anything rational in suicide by definition. Every organ, vessel, and part of your body, especially your brain, is dedicated to keeping you alive for as long as possible. If it makes you feel the need to end your life, by definition it is not working.

A lot of bad things can happen to you in a lifetime, but death is the worst, without a doubt. To feel the need to inflict it upon yourself is therefore not rational at all, even if it is premeditated. What seems like one irrational spur of the moment decision is really one that in most cases had been considered well before. No one ends their own life before thinking about it beforehand.

I'm not convinced there's anything rational in suicide by definition. Every organ, vessel, and part of your body, especially your brain, is dedicated to keeping you alive for as long as possible.

I would say it's dedicated to keeping you alive long enough to raise children and help your children raise children. Which may be the same thing in practice, but more in line with how evolution works.

That's an interesting assumption. So only acts that are in "harmony" with what your body desires are rational, and all other acts are, by your definition, irrational? So when I'm under water, swimming up to the surface, and my body is telling me to take a breath right now, that would be rational? And suppressing the urge until I reach the surface is irrational?

An argument from organ function only operates if you believe the process of evolution that created those organs and their "goals" are what defines human meaning.

I personally believe humans derive their own meaning in life. Temporary chemical imbalances and runaway feedback loops of emotional harm can certainly lead to impairment of rational judgement concerning suicide, but that doesn't mean that if you accept the premise that humans derive their own value that there can be rational avenues to suicide.

For situations like accute depression and anxiety (of which I'm intimitely familiar) are situations where I would argue ones judgement is impaired when it comes to suicide, and I don't doubt that said impairment is extrapolable to many other situations.

>A lot of bad things can happen to you in a lifetime, but death is the worst, without a doubt.

I think that comes down to whether you believe that

A) Someone can experience a negative qualia

B) Someone can rationaly predict that said living situation is now a permenant state of affairs with a high enough degree of certainty

C) That death is a negative (negative only insofar as it can effect others) to neutral qualia that is still higher than and therefore preferable to an expected permenant negative qualia.

I'm not of the opinion that this is something that can typically be done independently, as humans are vulnerable to a host of conditions that can impair our ability to make judgement B, and I sure as hell hope that anyone wanting to make that decision trusts the people they ask to help them make it.

The protoypical example people tend to use is alzheimers victims, who are frequently (but not always) permenantly and irrecoverably (for now hopefully) distressed.

"Every organ, vessel, and part of your body, especially your brain, is dedicated to keeping you alive for as long as possible."

They're not dedicated to keeping people alive. They may play a role in keeping some people alive (or not, depending on a lot of factors).

You're imagining purpose for organs and cells which just exist and sometimes function or sometimes don't.

Even if they did have some purpose (which there's no evidence for), does that mean that humans should blindly submit to whatever that purpose is?

Why shouldn't a human be able to make their own decisions instead of giving over decision-making authority to their body?

> Every organ, vessel, and part of your body, especially your brain, is dedicated to keeping you alive for as long as possible.

On the contrary, I think every part of my body is dedicated to making sure my DNA propagates. But, being conscious, my cognition can overrule the evolutionary imperative. All the more easily if I've reproduced.

And death is not necessarily the worst thing that could happen to me. Search "locked in" illness. Or Alzheimer's. There are many illness states to which I'd find death preferable.

Death is a very long way from being the worst thing that can happen. That's why a lot of torture methods are about keeping you alive as long as possible, or doing something horrible and forcing you to live with it. Not to mention illness robbing you of you mind and body, or personal loss making life unbearable.

I personally think of suicide not as a decision to die but rather a decision not to live. No one wants to die but it is very conceivable that one could be in a situation that no longer is worth the effort to sustain. Side note, I do not feel this way now but when younger I certainly felt like being alive wasn't worth the trouble and had to go through a process of convincing myself it was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com