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.
In what way am I imposing my values on anyone? I'm simply asking a question. Has this comment somehow deprived you of the ability to have your own opinion?
You can't see why oblivion would be preferable to anything other than, say, extreme chronic pain? I can't imagine that anyone could be so blind.
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) :)
That's a circular definition. It's "worth" it because it has "value". Value for what? To whom? Why does it need to have a value? Does a tree or a mountain or a zebra or anything else need a value to justify its existence?
To the person making the decision on whether to continue to exist. Trees may or may not be making such a decision, same with zebras, I neither know nor care.
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.
In order to obtain value from anything, you have to exist. So, the value of nonexistence is always going to be zero. Unless your current existence has a negative value (i.e. constant pain, severe depression) existence is always preferable. Nonexistence also has the opportunity cost of all the things you can do if you continue to exist.
As I said in other comment, it can be boiled down to the term value/effort (which cannot go negative).
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!
Assuming the value of a life can be assigned a simple scalar quantity seems like an unjustified assumption.
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.
> Assuming the value of a life can be assigned a simple scalar quantity seems like an unjustified assumption.
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.
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.
If your point is that suicide is a reasonable response to life not meeting your expectations, I find that equally weak. You're in charge of your expectations. You can change them, or let go of them altogether.
I have no expectations. Yours seem to lead to a great deal of suffering for yourself, that's why I'm curious as to why you cling to them so fiercely. As you say, you need a good reason to continue doing something. You should stop, e.g. living, if you're not getting anything out of it. If having your expectations is not benefiting you, why not stop having them?
> Yours seem to lead to a great deal of suffering for yourself
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 body doesn't expect air. Expecting something is a function of consciousness. Your body doesn't expect air any more than an engine expects gasoline. So no, that's not my conclusion unless you grossly misuse the word "expect".
You can't change your body's need for oxygen. You can change the way you think.
So all pain is equivalent? Is that what you're saying? Any experience of pain is a rational excuse to kill yourself? I guess if you stub your toe, you may as well end it all, then.
Yes, and your basic point that if it ever seems to you like you'd be better off dead then you should kill yourself, is frankly, outright irresponsible and idiotic. Especially with a disease like depression where one of the symptoms is that things seem more hopeless than they really are. In a community that has lost more than its fair share of members to suicide, this is a stance I really can't comprehend.
What is the yardstick of value you're judging life against?
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)
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.