Relevant To The Question Of Suicide example essay topic

Is there any substantial reason not to commit suicide? The reason this question is interesting is because normally the question is asked from the other direction. Most people are more likely to ask themselves if there is any substantial reason to commit suicide before asking if there is a reason not to: It seems very morbid to ask if there is not first! It is actually a sin to commit suicide in some religions. Jews for example, who believe in the sanctity of life, find suicide wrong. In fact, any belief in the sanctity of life is a reason not to commit suicide.

Or perhaps, in a rather curious twist, if you don't commit suicide you are proclaiming your belief in the sanctity of life by proclaiming you believe there to be a point to life. After all, if you didn't believe there was some point to life, even if you don't know what it is, you would probably give up living. Apart from reasons on religious grounds, whose arguments only apply to a certain number of the population, there is also the question of what and whom you leave behind. By commiting suicide you selfishly ignore the effect your death will have on other people. Maybe we are being egocentric believing our friends and relations would care if we kicked the bucket, but I think we can be allowed this one small display of arrogance! Of course, this ignores the fact that people commiting suicide often feel that there is no-one who will care if they die.

Of course, this is often not true, but even if it was the effect on other people is still negative. The problems you are faced with, perhaps debt or too much work, will be passed on to others still living. There is only one trouble with this argument: It does depend that the person cares if he is selfish! And a person standing on top of a high building will probably be thinking it fairer if people are feeling sorry for him rather than vice-versa. However, these reasons are very case by case. They cannot really be counted as substantial as they do not apply in all situations.

Im sure there would almost certainly be a social benefit if Sadam Hussein decided his time was up, and im not sure if his belief in the sanctity of life would be enough to stop him. His reason for staying alive is probably more because he enjoys it than anything else (if he enjoys it because he enjoys trying to realise his ideals then his basest reason is still because he enjoys it). If Sadam decided he no longer enjoyed life, then why should he not commit suicide? One problem with suicide is that it is quite a permanent change. Its not like turning off the lights. If you decide afterwards that it was actually a mistake, you are going to have problems revitalizing your rotting body from beyond the grave.

Human beings do have a fear of permanent change. Even semi-permanent change is feared sometimes. Moving house is not permanent, but still we are still frightened by the fact that if it is a mistake, it will be a mistake that lasts for a substantial time period. Suicide is in fact the ultimate permanent change, due to the fact that after it, at least in the world we perceive at the moment, you have no target and are going nowhere.

Up till death we are just waiting for the next change - First solid food. Start of school. End of school. Start of work.

Retirement. Death. After death in this world there seems to be nothing. Even if there is life after death, you have to doubt if you remember anything about this life. It seems very unlikely that you are the first existence in a series of life after deaths, and if you are not, and you don't remember anything about your previous life, there is no reason to believe you should remember anything about this life in your next life. Of course, you have to wander, if you do not share any memories of your previous existences, are they connected to you at all?

Life after death is after all extremely relevant to the question of suicide as it is where you are or where you are not going afterwards. For the reason above, it is unlikely you can have a cycle of life-after-deaths. If you have no memory of the previous life, then the two are not really connected and so it is not really life after death, and it is very unlikely you are in your first life. Perhaps life after death exists in the form of the history of the universe repeating itself, and therefore your life.

The problem with this is that time really makes no difference. It could be travelling forwards or backwards just as happily, and indeed could all exist at once. If you were travelling backwards in time your memories would still be the same as if you were travelling forwards and so you would still get the impression you were travelling forwards. Therefore there is no sense of permanence and no sense of permanent change (my original point). There is also the standard Christian view of going to heaven or hell after death. This is a sort of embroidered dualism.

There is the story of people sitting, looking at the reflection of the flickering fire on the wall and not realising they are only looking at an image of the real world. However, the people looking at the fire have not turned around to see the fires beautiful reflections on the wall. There is no objective way of saying whether either groups view is more valid than the others. There is no objective way of saying who in fact has the 'real' perception of the world.

Perhaps the real world is more godly. However, by saying that you must imply that the other world is less godly. If God has absolute power over everything, which he must do by definition, then he must be permeant in everything. He must be evenly permeant in everything as if he wasn't then it would mean he had less power in some places than others, which cannot be true.

Therefore he has to be evenly permeant in both worlds. By having both a heaven and a hell you can solve this problem by saying that what makes heaven and hell closer to God is the fact that they are more extreme than the perceived world. Heaven is filled with souls who by free-will are good, hell by souls who are bad. But if heaven is entirely good, and hell is entirely bad, then how to people from earth go to either?

They are neither entirely good nor entirely bad. Perhaps there is some kind of soul dividing process, so all the parts of your soul in charge of stamping on insects and stealing sweets go to hell, and the part in charge of calling your parents every night goes to heaven. This however sounds quite painful, and somewhat anti-thinking (How can you have sensible thoughts if you are unable to see both the bad and good side of an argument? ), I don't think God would let this happen. Another easier thought about the after-life might be that there is no after-life. This is a somewhat depressing thought, but maybe can be made brighter by the fact that our lives would be a part of the universe, and serves some function in the continuation of the universe.

In this sense we are alive eternally. There is one thing consistent in all of these scenarios. That is the uncertainty of knowing where you are to go or the loss of knowledge completely. Either is a very substantial reason not to commit suicide which can be applied in all cases. There is no simple, truly convincing argument not to commit suicide. Uncertainty over life-after-death is important for all humans.

If they want to be removed from life completely, they have no way of knowing they will not be given some new life somewhere else. If they want to go to heaven they don't know they will not go to hell. This is certainly a universal reason to not commit suicide. Similarly, humans universal will to survive is in almost every case a reason to not commit suicide. There is also the effect it will have on the world you leave behind. These may add up to a substantial argument not to commit suicide, but I do not think any of them could be considered substantial single reasons not to, that could apply in every case.