This rankles. Why does life have to be "worth" living? What is the yardstick of value you're judging life against? Life simply is. Unless you're in extreme chronic pain, I can't see why oblivion would be preferable. You'll get there eventually anyway, no need to rush it. In the meantime there is more than enough here to explore for one lifetime.
Why do you get to impose your values on someone else about a thing you literally can't know?
Murder is illegal because you're depriving someone else from their right to life. The person who does the killing is the criminal and the person being killed is the victim.
But I can't steal money from myself can I? So in that regard, neither can I murder myself. Every person has the moral right to end their own lives even if we don't like it and don't understand it.
Of course it's illegal to kill yourself, but not because the justice system has any ability to prosecute a corpse. It's so that people who try to kill themselves and fail badly at it can be temporarily restrained and given medical attention.
The yardstick is simple, does continuing to exist seem like something of higher net value than oblivion. The reality of daily existence barely meets that criteria for me, and I can only imagine I have far fewer troubles than most of the world's population.
I often wonder if the majority of people only continue to exist because of social obligations and cultural attitudes. Or maybe they just enjoy more things (such as the exploration you mention) :)
However, I do make that decision every day. So do you, whether you recognise it or not. Existence is not imposed on me, I have both the ability to know I exist and the means to change that.
Not existing is 0/0 i.e. indeterminate. Existing can be >= 1 (worth living) or < 1 (not worth living, regardless of how much value you get out of life).
Some people prefer indeterminate to < 1. Is it that unreasonable?
Furthermore, some people assign value to not doing something, even if it's a priori. Not being in constant pain (whether physical or psychical) definitely has some value. In that case, not being alive approaches infinity!
Regardless, I don't think I'm explaining this well. "Value" and "worth" imply that you have some expectation that life has to meet in order to be satisfied with it, that it has to be doing something or accomplishing something. That's not really necessary. Your life, all life, simply is. There's no greater purpose necessary.
It's not a scalar quantity but a fuzzy one. My point is still valid.
> "Value" and "worth" imply that you have some expectation that life has to meet in order to be satisfied with it, that it has to be doing something or accomplishing something.
Definitely. Why would I live then? It should be doing something: be enjoyable. At the bare minimum.
> Your life, all life, simply is.
So...? I don't follow your point here. Just like it simply is, I can simply terminate it.
> There's no greater purpose necessary.
You're the one who brought a greater purpose here. I don't particularly care about my life's purpose. In fact, if it had a purpose, it could be wrong to terminate it.
That's my point. There is no why. You don't need a why. You do live.
If your point is "you don't need a why", allow me to say it's a very weak point, because then you don't need a why to suicide either. You don't need a why to anything really.
Also: because you say so?
You're in charge of your expectations, leave mine alone!
I'm not the one suffering over whether anyone else would expect anything out of life or not. I particularly enjoy life, so you are wrong even about that. Too.
But I understand anyone not enjoying life wanting to end it.
> If having your expectations is not benefiting you, why not stop having them?
My body expects air. My body expecting air is not benefiting it underwater. Your conclusion is my body should stop expecting air underwater.
Your logic baffles me.
You can't change your body's need for oxygen. You can change the way you think.
Nope. Pain is pain. You can't change that.
Because life requires effort which some people might not like to spend.
> What is the yardstick of value you're judging life against?
Against not living.
If value/effort < 1 suicide seems like a pretty logical decision.
That is up to each individual person. In my opinion, if I'm miserable for the majority of my time and I'm not enjoying being alive at all anymore, then in my opinion my life has stopped being worth living and I'd personally rather end it on my own terms than continue living just for the sake of it. I personally don't believe I get anything from living just to stay living and would rather end it sooner than I otherwise naturally would.
For other people, its all about surviving and things would have to be super horrible for them to consider taking their own lives. Its a personal thing and I think everybody should be allowed to choose on their own terms based on their own beliefs and opinions.
Of course, its not that simple in real life because what I value my life at isn't necessarily what I should be valuing it at. For example, I may feel its time to end it based on my criteria above, but if, say, I had children who relied on me, then that needs to be factored in too and life may well be worth it for their sake if not my own.
But at the end of the day, its my opinion that if (my life's value to me) - (my life's value to others) < 0 then people should accept that its my choice. In a lot of suicide stories I've heard people say stuff like "how could (s)he have done this to their loved ones" or "suicide is a selfish act", but this ignores the pain the person was going through. IMHO if my pain being alive is greater than the pain my loved ones if I'm dead, then it would be selfish of my loved ones to expect me to continue to endure my pain just so they don't have to deal with theirs.
(yes, yes, in real real life its much more complex since often my perceived value is based on temporary circumstances, mental illness etc and not a true reflection of my self-worth or willingness to keep on living)