jtc78@ihuxm.UUCP (Mike Cherepov) (01/04/85)
.....
Here's something else to kick things off:
I was wondering about society's motives to counter suicide:
there are some socio-psychological needs that go against
suicide, but in any case they are not nearly as clear-cut as
those opposing incest or murder. There must have been a lot
written on that previously.
Also, those needs were strong enough to manifest themselves as
instances of divinely prohibited actions in some religions. I
do not have a balanced picture here, maybe someone could give
a perspective.
By Thursday. Please, PLEASE, or else I ... ; joking tastelessly.
Mike Cherepov
REPLIES (if any) to ihnp4!ihlpm!cher
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/06/85)
I think part of it is the theory that since suicide is killing a human, it is wrong (like murder). I think most religions oppose murder not because it is taking away someone else's right to live, but because it is taking away a life that [some] god has put here for some reason. Thus, suicide was a mortal sin. [Suicides were buried at crossroads (don't know the reason for that) with stakes through their hearts; this was supposed to prevent their souls from getting to heaven.] Also, the Church [the one that tried to run Europe during the middle ages] was real 'posessive' of its members and potential members. Heresy was bad partly because it went against church teachings, but also largely because the heretics and any they persuaded to their degenerate point of view ( :-) ) were lost souls, lost sources of income, etc. [The following is real fuzzy and is based largely on history classes for which I no longer have notes.] On a more practical note, in medieval times people were, uh, more valuable to the community. If a peasant farmer who had ten kids depending on him killed himself, that was a lot more devastating than a father today killing himself (from a financial/practical point of view only; I'm sure the psychology of it hasn't changed much). There was no social security or whatnot to take over, and while the rest of the community could help a bit, if the kids weren't yet old enough to run the farm (women were probably not a viable option) things could get bad. [As an aside, up until the 1800s it was normal for a couple to have a kid that survived every two years. Or so one of my history professors claimed.] And, of course, a lot of people back then thought that insanity (anyone who commits suicide is insane by their standards) was contagious and/or hereditary. Thus, showing signs of insanity was bad. As for *today's* society, I'm not really sure, religion/murder theory aside... -Dragon -- UUCP: ...seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) (01/06/85)
> Here's something else to kick things off: > > I was wondering about society's motives to counter suicide: > there are some socio-psychological needs that go against > suicide, but in any case they are not nearly as clear-cut as > those opposing incest or murder. There must have been a lot > written on that previously. > Also, those needs were strong enough to manifest themselves as > instances of divinely prohibited actions in some religions. I > do not have a balanced picture here, maybe someone could give > a perspective. > > Mike Cherepov Well, there's the quazi-Marxist view that suicide is opposed by oppressing capitalist (dogs) as a depletion of the exploited workforce! Also, if suicide is seen as a devaluation of life, it might create disturbing questions for survivors if it is freely permitted. Also, the basic tragedy of suicide is the lost of the life and experiences of an individual who is appreciated by their fellow human beings. They no longer contribute to the diversity of human experience. -- Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam "Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Nancy...."
sr@u1100a.UUCP (Steven Radtke) (01/10/85)
In article <224@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA> mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) writes: >I think part of it is the theory that since suicide is killing a human, it >is wrong (like murder). I think most religions oppose murder not because it >is taking away someone else's right to live, but because it is taking away a >life that [some] god has put here for some reason. Thus, suicide was a >mortal sin. [Suicides were buried at crossroads (don't know the reason for >that) with stakes through their hearts; this was supposed to prevent their >souls from getting to heaven.] > Lately I have wondered about this sort of proposition and the blunt question posed by the recent movie "Whose Life is it, Anyway?" I never saw the film and don't even know if it is about suicide, but with that title it should be. Seeing this title provoked an imaginary argument between me and a loved one who wanted to cause their own death. I couldn't picture myself making arguments like the one above, because I am ambivalent about "Whose Life is it, Anyway?" I would like to reserve the right to toggle off should things become grim, but I hope that someone I loved contemplating suicide would think about that question and not be so *#&@ simplistic in posing that question as to presume that anyone has a life in the same sense as one has a bicycle or a stomach. When I say I have a life, what is it I have? It is not a thing, external ( bicycle ) or internal ( stomach ). I think it as correct to say that "life has me" as "I have life". So what is suicide when life is not another possession amongst the many one has these days? If each person's life is a sharing with one of breath after breath, then suicide withdraws from the sharing and those of us left living may be devastated by the withdrawal. When a colleague of mine years ago killed himself, those closest to him reacted as if their trust had been violated. I really want to stop there and just say that I offer this from a sense of trying to avoid a hasty or inadequate evaluation before acting. I tend to be a moralizer if I don't shut up soon enough. I think that a suicide could happen for many reasons, and many of them transcend analysis. I just offer the thoughts. Steve
kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (01/14/85)
>I was wondering about society's motives to counter suicide: > Mike Cherepov I think the primary motive is an implied insult: the suicide implies that the life others are taking *so* seriously is not meaningful, or at least not worth suffering too much over. Another motive might be that society would lose too many valuable people if suicide were sanctioned--best to shame them in to hanging on and doing something *creative* with their misery, like, say, Dostoyevsky, or Kafka. At any rate, in order to succeed over time, a culture/religion will have to take the demands of reality seriously, and discourage members/adherents from taking off to the next world unless they're doing something worthwhile, like throwing themselves on the bayonets of the infidels. . . . Kevin Saunders lasspvax.kevin@cornell.arpa "The salmon was CANNED?!" "Well, I'm sorry, they were all out of fresh. . ."
bwm@ccice2.UUCP (Brad Miller) (01/14/85)
In article <872@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP (gam) writes: >Well, there's the quazi-Marxist view that suicide is opposed by >oppressing capitalist (dogs) as a depletion of the exploited >workforce! Well, then we would look at resources as fixed and now there are fewer people among whom those resources must be devided, leaving everyone else better off! -- ...[rochester, cbrma, rlgvax, ritcv]!ccice5!ccice2!bwm