ZZZ...
Yeah, so upon reflection that last entry was probably really boring to most of you. Well, you know what? I don't really care. I have fun writing sometimes, just for me. So, on that note, what am I gonna do? I'm going to write a whole lot more about things that few of you will probably care about.
Part of what prompted me to write about The Fountain, aside from my love for the film, was the perception a few people I've encountered lately have had which was that the film was pro-suicide or pro-death. Personally I don't feel this is the case; With regards to mortality, I believe the film is about a person who refuses to accept death's inevitability (an extreme position) learning to accept death as a natural part of life and to integrate the necessity of death into his paradigm. That said...
What's so wrong about dying? It's something that happens to all of us. Moreover, what's so wrong about choosing to end your own life that this act should merit hostility? I encounter another related perspective quite often as well, and not usually in relation to The Fountain: That suicide is a morally reprehensible act worthy of hostility. It's a perspective I've never been able to comprehend.
OK, sure, some cases of suicide are obviously quite wrong. Leaving behind a family (particularly one with children) that depends on you is wrong whether it involves killing yourself or not, and in those cases I think it's fair to suggest that it's wrong to turn away from your responsibilities like that. Sorry Mr. Curtis and Mr. Cobain. So let's just assume that those cases are obviously wrong and not bother debating them.
What then of the other cases, where the person committing the act is not obviously leaving behind some form of monumental responsibility to others? Why should we think that a person who decides that living itself is unbearable is engaging in something despicable if they should decide to end their own life?
Some of you might suggest that I'm making use of a false dichotomy: that there's not that much difference between the children left behind by suicidal parents and the friends left behind in other cases. I'll concede that there may be some cases where the line between "dependent" and "friend" may be blurred, but I think that these would be in a very small minority. Friends may depend on you for companionship and for the occasional helping hand, but generally speaking a "friend" is someone who can live without you - what makes you friends is that you choose to keep each others' acquaintance in spite of that fact. A child, however, is a person you chose to bring into this world with the understanding that you are responsible for its upbringing and well-being. I'm not going to get into issues of adoption or anything like that here; suffice it to say that one's children and one's friends are categorically different with regards to dependency. One particular case that is a bit fuzzy is that of a spouse or other dependent family member, but I don't think it's too difficult to make a case-by-case judgment call there: if the person's lifestyle, livelihood, and health are mostly dependent upon another person's existence, the latter person would be tossed into the "asshole" category if they offed themselves.
Perhaps there is a feeling that these people have made a terrible, incorrigible mistake. If so, does this justify feelings of hostility toward them? When a friend makes a mistake we might feel sad for them and try to console them; when they intentionally make a choice we disagree with or that we have warned them against and this turns out poorly for them, we might take on a stern disposition to ensure that they are able to learn from their mistake, but in most cases we will continue being their friend; in the rare case where a friend truly betrays our deeply held beliefs and ethical principles, we might actually cut off the friendship. Does suicide necessarily fall into the latter category? Those "deeply held beliefs and ethical principles" are quite likely focused around the notion that it's wrong to abuse other people, but suicide is no such abuse as all parties involved give full consent for the actions that follow.
Some people of certain religious (or philosophical - see Plato) persuasions might consider it inherently wrong to kill yourself and lump the act into category number 3 (the friendship-breaking mistake), usually for reasons relating to the notion that we aren't the owners of our own lives - God is, and it's wrong to "steal" from God. It's fine if you believe that, but we're not really going to see eye to eye on this, so I suppose you're not really my target audience for this discussion. However, if you come to this position from a Christian perspective, I would like to remind you of two things: firstly, the most popular interpretation of the New Testament seems to be that faith in Christ is the path to forgiveness for all sins (see 1 John 1:7, for example), and presumably the "sin" of suicide would fall into the "all" category; secondly, the New Testament implies that judgment is God's to make, not your own (see Matthew 7:1, John 8:7).
Let's look back to the first two cases: the sloppy mistake and the intentional mistake. Furthermore, let's assume that some suicides are carefully planned and well-considered, while others are done hastily out of passion. If someone kills him- or herself without thought or planning in a moment of passion, then it's certainly justified to see that person as a bit of a buffoon. It would be justified to see anyone who makes any such mistake with permanent consequences in a similar light, from suicide to unplanned child-rearing to a poor choice of tattoo. Would you disown a good friend for making either of the latter two mistakes? You may not have much sympathy for their situation, but it's also likely that you wouldn't completely abandon your friendship for them either. Why should a suicide of passion and unreason - tragic as that may be - be seen any differently?
The other instance - the planned, "rational" suicide - could be a topic of some debate. Does this even exist? Is it possible to kill yourself from a "rational" perspective? For the sake of argument, let's assume each answer separately. If we assume that no, this sort of decision is fundamentally irrational and would not intentionally be made by anyone of right mind, then we are brought back to the same situation as the suicide of passion outlined above, and the arguments there would hold just as true. It is perhaps worth noting that this perspective necessarily assumes that you understand the perspective of a suicidal person better than they themselves do in order to be able to judge them to be irrational, and this assumption is highly contentious, but I do not need to make my case against this particular assumption in order to prove my overall point.
Let's assume, then, that some people have come to the rational conclusion that their own lives are not worth continuing and they have chosen suicide. Whether or not you agree with their reasons and their logic, these people cannot be said to be trying to do evil. They are clearly oppressed by forces greater than they can bear and, presumably after much contemplation, the only solution they can see to this unbearable problem is death. Even if you might disagree (again noting the presumptions this entails), can this reasoning truly be said to be contemptible? Is it wrong for a person to attempt to solve such a problem and relieve themselves of suffering?
Another possibility is that those who have an emotional connection to the subject of a suicide feel personally victimized by the act. "It's fine for a person to do whatever they want to themselves, but when someone takes their own life they cause great sadness and despair in those who were close to them and they should be held accountable for that," they might suggest. This interpretation might hold water if we were to assume that suicide was an entirely neutral act on the part of the person committing the act. It seems clear to me, however, that most who choose to end their own lives - even if this act is chosen in a moment of passion - must be facing a great deal of turmoil and that, to them, suicide is seen as an end to their suffering. When we re-assess the situation, we have the grieving of the friends and family on one side of the scales, and the turmoil of the deceased on the other. I think there's an obvious contradiction in accusing the suicide victim "selfish" for taking his or her own life, but what about the grieving friends and family? "You made me feel sad with the solution you chose for your problems, and for that you should be despised!" I don't mean to say that people shouldn't grieve such a loss or that they shouldn't feel a wide range of emotions, but for them to maintain that a person who kills him- or herself should be despised for the pain and sadness inflicted is ultimately nothing but selfish.
The final claim I want to consider - there are others, such as how we might have a responsibility to the state to be a productive member of society and help fuel the economy and that suicide violates that responsibility, but, frankly, that's ridiculous - is that suicide is a fundamentally cowardly act and should be despised on those grounds. I will not judge whether this act is one of courage or of cowardice, and I suspect that the answer varies from case to case, but even if we assume that suicide is a cowardly act it does not seem consistent for us to hold it in such low regard. People exhibit cowardice every day in innumerable ways and they are rarely held accountable, and again I return to the same question: Why should suicide be seen any differently?
Okay, 4:30, time for bed...
Part of what prompted me to write about The Fountain, aside from my love for the film, was the perception a few people I've encountered lately have had which was that the film was pro-suicide or pro-death. Personally I don't feel this is the case; With regards to mortality, I believe the film is about a person who refuses to accept death's inevitability (an extreme position) learning to accept death as a natural part of life and to integrate the necessity of death into his paradigm. That said...
What's so wrong about dying? It's something that happens to all of us. Moreover, what's so wrong about choosing to end your own life that this act should merit hostility? I encounter another related perspective quite often as well, and not usually in relation to The Fountain: That suicide is a morally reprehensible act worthy of hostility. It's a perspective I've never been able to comprehend.
OK, sure, some cases of suicide are obviously quite wrong. Leaving behind a family (particularly one with children) that depends on you is wrong whether it involves killing yourself or not, and in those cases I think it's fair to suggest that it's wrong to turn away from your responsibilities like that. Sorry Mr. Curtis and Mr. Cobain. So let's just assume that those cases are obviously wrong and not bother debating them.
What then of the other cases, where the person committing the act is not obviously leaving behind some form of monumental responsibility to others? Why should we think that a person who decides that living itself is unbearable is engaging in something despicable if they should decide to end their own life?
Some of you might suggest that I'm making use of a false dichotomy: that there's not that much difference between the children left behind by suicidal parents and the friends left behind in other cases. I'll concede that there may be some cases where the line between "dependent" and "friend" may be blurred, but I think that these would be in a very small minority. Friends may depend on you for companionship and for the occasional helping hand, but generally speaking a "friend" is someone who can live without you - what makes you friends is that you choose to keep each others' acquaintance in spite of that fact. A child, however, is a person you chose to bring into this world with the understanding that you are responsible for its upbringing and well-being. I'm not going to get into issues of adoption or anything like that here; suffice it to say that one's children and one's friends are categorically different with regards to dependency. One particular case that is a bit fuzzy is that of a spouse or other dependent family member, but I don't think it's too difficult to make a case-by-case judgment call there: if the person's lifestyle, livelihood, and health are mostly dependent upon another person's existence, the latter person would be tossed into the "asshole" category if they offed themselves.
Perhaps there is a feeling that these people have made a terrible, incorrigible mistake. If so, does this justify feelings of hostility toward them? When a friend makes a mistake we might feel sad for them and try to console them; when they intentionally make a choice we disagree with or that we have warned them against and this turns out poorly for them, we might take on a stern disposition to ensure that they are able to learn from their mistake, but in most cases we will continue being their friend; in the rare case where a friend truly betrays our deeply held beliefs and ethical principles, we might actually cut off the friendship. Does suicide necessarily fall into the latter category? Those "deeply held beliefs and ethical principles" are quite likely focused around the notion that it's wrong to abuse other people, but suicide is no such abuse as all parties involved give full consent for the actions that follow.
Some people of certain religious (or philosophical - see Plato) persuasions might consider it inherently wrong to kill yourself and lump the act into category number 3 (the friendship-breaking mistake), usually for reasons relating to the notion that we aren't the owners of our own lives - God is, and it's wrong to "steal" from God. It's fine if you believe that, but we're not really going to see eye to eye on this, so I suppose you're not really my target audience for this discussion. However, if you come to this position from a Christian perspective, I would like to remind you of two things: firstly, the most popular interpretation of the New Testament seems to be that faith in Christ is the path to forgiveness for all sins (see 1 John 1:7, for example), and presumably the "sin" of suicide would fall into the "all" category; secondly, the New Testament implies that judgment is God's to make, not your own (see Matthew 7:1, John 8:7).
Let's look back to the first two cases: the sloppy mistake and the intentional mistake. Furthermore, let's assume that some suicides are carefully planned and well-considered, while others are done hastily out of passion. If someone kills him- or herself without thought or planning in a moment of passion, then it's certainly justified to see that person as a bit of a buffoon. It would be justified to see anyone who makes any such mistake with permanent consequences in a similar light, from suicide to unplanned child-rearing to a poor choice of tattoo. Would you disown a good friend for making either of the latter two mistakes? You may not have much sympathy for their situation, but it's also likely that you wouldn't completely abandon your friendship for them either. Why should a suicide of passion and unreason - tragic as that may be - be seen any differently?
The other instance - the planned, "rational" suicide - could be a topic of some debate. Does this even exist? Is it possible to kill yourself from a "rational" perspective? For the sake of argument, let's assume each answer separately. If we assume that no, this sort of decision is fundamentally irrational and would not intentionally be made by anyone of right mind, then we are brought back to the same situation as the suicide of passion outlined above, and the arguments there would hold just as true. It is perhaps worth noting that this perspective necessarily assumes that you understand the perspective of a suicidal person better than they themselves do in order to be able to judge them to be irrational, and this assumption is highly contentious, but I do not need to make my case against this particular assumption in order to prove my overall point.
Let's assume, then, that some people have come to the rational conclusion that their own lives are not worth continuing and they have chosen suicide. Whether or not you agree with their reasons and their logic, these people cannot be said to be trying to do evil. They are clearly oppressed by forces greater than they can bear and, presumably after much contemplation, the only solution they can see to this unbearable problem is death. Even if you might disagree (again noting the presumptions this entails), can this reasoning truly be said to be contemptible? Is it wrong for a person to attempt to solve such a problem and relieve themselves of suffering?
Another possibility is that those who have an emotional connection to the subject of a suicide feel personally victimized by the act. "It's fine for a person to do whatever they want to themselves, but when someone takes their own life they cause great sadness and despair in those who were close to them and they should be held accountable for that," they might suggest. This interpretation might hold water if we were to assume that suicide was an entirely neutral act on the part of the person committing the act. It seems clear to me, however, that most who choose to end their own lives - even if this act is chosen in a moment of passion - must be facing a great deal of turmoil and that, to them, suicide is seen as an end to their suffering. When we re-assess the situation, we have the grieving of the friends and family on one side of the scales, and the turmoil of the deceased on the other. I think there's an obvious contradiction in accusing the suicide victim "selfish" for taking his or her own life, but what about the grieving friends and family? "You made me feel sad with the solution you chose for your problems, and for that you should be despised!" I don't mean to say that people shouldn't grieve such a loss or that they shouldn't feel a wide range of emotions, but for them to maintain that a person who kills him- or herself should be despised for the pain and sadness inflicted is ultimately nothing but selfish.
The final claim I want to consider - there are others, such as how we might have a responsibility to the state to be a productive member of society and help fuel the economy and that suicide violates that responsibility, but, frankly, that's ridiculous - is that suicide is a fundamentally cowardly act and should be despised on those grounds. I will not judge whether this act is one of courage or of cowardice, and I suspect that the answer varies from case to case, but even if we assume that suicide is a cowardly act it does not seem consistent for us to hold it in such low regard. People exhibit cowardice every day in innumerable ways and they are rarely held accountable, and again I return to the same question: Why should suicide be seen any differently?
Okay, 4:30, time for bed...