Instigator / Pro
0
1500
rating
1
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6238
Is suicide a moral option
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two hours
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
0
1382
rating
436
debates
45.41%
won
Description
It may seem iam out of my senses but isn't death unavoidable and living life isn't always favourable in some cases , in some cases life is just not worth living , death is just nothingness if the concept of afterlife isn't linked but even if afterlife exist all of us have committed crimes at the end of we look at it the more we live the higher amount of crimes we do this more chances of going to hell please give me valid arguments for this debate and again iam not mentally ill it's just a debate!
Round 1
According to me
life has no meaning and luck is a crucial factor just pure coincidence decides your whole life even though you think you have control of your life truly life is just unpredictable maybe you will have a good life Tommorow maybe it will be horrible but the risk to reward in some cases is just too low you are better off dead in cases imagine you are given two options before getting locked into a cage forever in the cage you would just get food once horrible tasting food no light no communication nothing to do but you are given an option to kill yourself would you go through that suffering or suffering of death
Here is my argument based on thinking of philosophy
1. Life is Governed by Luck, Not Effort or Control
No matter how much effort we put into shaping our lives, a huge portion of our fate is determined by pure luck — where we're born, our family, our genetics, and the circumstances we encounter. Success often isn’t a reflection of hard work alone but of being in the right place at the right time. Two people with the same abilities can end up with completely different outcomes just because of random chance. Philosopher Thomas Nagel talks about “moral luck,” where people are judged and rewarded not based on what they control, but on external results. So the belief that we have full control over our lives is more comforting than it is true — in reality, most of us are passengers in a vehicle driven by coincidence.
---
2. Life Is Unpredictable and Often Not Worth the Risk
Life is inherently unpredictable. You might wake up tomorrow to a disaster or loss that completely breaks you, regardless of how careful or optimistic you are. The possibility of life being good always comes with the equal or greater risk that it might be terrible. In many cases — poverty, illness, war, isolation — the risk-to-reward ratio of staying alive feels absurdly unfair. Philosophers like David Benatar and Arthur Schopenhauer have argued that life is more pain than pleasure, and that non-existence spares us from suffering. If the future is so uncertain, and the suffering outweighs the joy, then continuing to live can seem like a gamble with terrible odds.
---
3. Free Will is an Illusion — We're Not Really Choosing Anything
We like to think we have control over our decisions, but in reality, most of our choices are determined by our upbringing, personality, and the environment we didn’t choose. If you zoom out, everything — from your career path to your personal tastes — has been shaped by influences outside your control. Philosophers like Baron d’Holbach and Albert Camus point out that our sense of freedom is largely an illusion. Even our thoughts are reactions to prior causes. So when people say “you can choose to be happy” or “you control your fate,” it ignores how deeply embedded we are in systems and circumstances we didn’t sign up for. In a world governed by invisible forces, how can we claim we truly own our lives?
---
4. Suicide Can Be a Rational Escape from Meaningless Suffering
When life offers only constant suffering without relief — like being trapped forever in a cage with no light, tasteless food, and no connection to the world — the option to end that suffering becomes rational, not cowardly. Albert Camus once said that suicide is the only truly serious philosophical question: if life has no inherent meaning and only suffering, then why keep going? While Camus ultimately argued for resistance against the absurd, he acknowledged the logic behind choosing to opt out. If you are forced into a life where you can’t change anything and there’s no hope, choosing death might be more humane than being sentenced to endless misery.
-.
Forfeited
Round 2
Umm he just left iam new and don't know what am I supposed to do? Anyways as you didn't give any valid points I will just put my points anyways
Many religious books say suicide is a crime and it's a gift by God but the counter to this is would you use a gift which is causing you harm for example a phone cover with spikes on it or a water bottle which leaks plastic into it slowly causing cancer you won't right? Any person logically would throw it even if it was a gift similarly if life gets so bad that it no longer is worth living why not to get disposed of it?
"According to me"
Just by this alone, validity is thrown out the window.
We need objective rationale fixated, non erroneous, not subject to error.
This is how science works. It's what makes facts facts. That which is and not subject to change.
It can't be this today and something else tomorrow.
When we're talking about good and bad, what is bad to me is good to you. A third party on the outside looking in has no definitive direction and is left with the question.
Is this good or not?
What is the truth?
The truth is constant producing validity which logic forms.
Ok I digress.
"Life is Governed by Luck, Not Effort or Control"
This is broad and asserted as unproven.
Which life, what life? All or some life.
Where is the evidence that life is just arbitrary at all and not orchestrated?
Based by physics, laws of aerodynamics, etc., engineers have manipulated, engineered a way with aircrafts. Engineered control mechanisms for crafts to do what they do. It's not by chance or arbitrary function. It's deliberate function that directs the life of people. Particularly those that are involved in air travel, air control and traffic control.
Again, not arbitrary. Speaking of people in travel and movement, people use the same or similar rules to move in athletics, sports. For instance the control of moving a ball into a net. It's not arbitrary like a slot machine particularly orchestrated for chance and probability or what you say is luck.
Too much going on in deliberate cause and effect to conclude absolutely as an assertive statement that life period is under luck.
"Success often isn’t a reflection of hard work alone but of being in the right place at the right time. Two people with the same abilities can end up with completely different outcomes just because of random chance. "
See, right here you're mixing it all up. By these statements you've mentioned basically cause and effect along with chance.
So that negates the statement "Life is Governed by Luck, Not Effort or Control".
The statement in order to remain consistent should read "Life is not only Governed by Luck, but also with Effort and Control".
"So the belief that we have full control over our lives is more comforting than it is true — in reality, most of us are passengers in a vehicle driven by coincidence."
According to your statements, we have some control.
"Life Is Unpredictable and Often Not Worth the Risk"
It can't be unpredictable period. We just acknowledged cause and effect will play into some scenarios not beyond our control via efforts made.
Hence where you say often not worth it, that's different from saying never worth it. So as long as we can't go fully across the board, we can be responsible for the control we do have and what we do is qualified to go on trial for justification. Whether we were justified in doing certain acts and this would include suicide.
Unfortunately against your case, as long as we established we have a measure of control, we cannot eliminate that we can't use a capacity of that in some way to choose any other option besides suicide.
"Life is inherently unpredictable."
This is inherently false as we've established the control we do have which removes some unpredictability and establishes some predictability which can coincide with worth it proportions.
Which reinforces the reward over risk.
" You might wake up tomorrow to a disaster or loss that completely breaks you, regardless of how careful or optimistic you are. The possibility of life being good always comes with the equal or greater risk that it might be terrible."
This is like trying to paint a nihilist picture that because based on this, that we don't know the bad that is coming which we presumably, presumably, presumably we can't control, what makes suicide immoral or wrong?
Well ... painting the opposite optimistic picture. We have so many success stories, survivor stories, people triumphing. Why should I deprive myself of that for a chance of loss when I just have a chance to win?
If I live, I give myself more chance to victor. If I sell myself short and cut everything off and that's final, I'm out. Not worth it compared to giving it time in the market to gain.
Just like a stock market investor that only gives himself a small amount of time to allow the value to grow. He sells right away because things appear to plummet and settles with loss. As opposed to the investor that didn't just pull out . He allowed time, another day, another year , stayed in for the long haul and now , he's got longevity in success out of so called luck. No, he didn't arbitrarily decide to stick it out. He deliberately took control, did the work, made the effort and made his name Warren Buffet.
" In many cases — poverty, illness, war, isolation — the risk-to-reward ratio of staying alive feels absurdly unfair. If the future is so uncertain, and the suffering outweighs the joy, then continuing to live can seem like a gamble with terrible odds."
You say "if" and "seem". Well as long as we don't know, it makes it worth it and sensible to play it the other way. So we continue on with life just like that investor illustration to take the same "luck" for it to all turn around, thus eliminating suicide as justified off the table forever.
"Free Will is an Illusion — We're Not Really Choosing Anything"
But choosing suicide, right. Why would you commit suicide and I don't?
Is it by chance that I'm more rational and you're still lacking insight on life causing a pessimistic view?
So what happens, do I make my next move based on that thought process like orchestrated cause and effect and not arbitrarily making a predictable move based on that?
If you say no, what caused me or swayed me?
Was that by luck? Was that arbitrary?
Is it by freedom of choice of words I'm using to respond or is that an illusion?
My stance is not an across the board interpretation.
I don't say everything is just luck and arbitrary which you omitted.
I don't say we don't have freedom of anything at all.
We have a will or a want and we have some capacity of freedom. How much? It is what it is.
"We like to think we have control over our decisions, but in reality, most of our choices are determined by our upbringing, personality, and the environment we didn’t choose. If you zoom out, everything — from your career path to your personal tastes — has been shaped by influences outside your control. "
This is establishing cause and effect in which we have some control and no control. Which you omitted again where you say "most of our choices".
One , it's still our choices. If we can't choose, we don't have our choices. Meaning no control.
See, if I have no control over something heavier than I that will crush me, I have no choice to prevent it. I have no freedom to move muscle and overcome. I'm trapped, I'm stuck, I can't budge. I'm bonded, imprisoned, no freedom.
But something I can work my strength against, I have control in not allowing it to crush me so hence I made a choice not to allow it because I'm not a suicidal person and the option was available. I had a choice, took it. I was at liberty or was free to move.
"Even our thoughts are reactions to prior causes. So when people say “you can choose to be happy” or “you control your fate,” it ignores how deeply embedded we are in systems and circumstances we didn’t sign up for. In a world governed by invisible forces, how can we claim we truly own our lives?"
Thoughts are different from actions. Incorrect equivalency. We don't have to claim but parts of them we do own such as the actions that are based on choices regardless of cause and effect.
"Suicide Can Be a Rational Escape from Meaningless Suffering"
Hence the problem. If you can't argue it is rational versus can be, there is no worth proven higher in no life versus having life itself .
Which just pushed the idea of giving a life a chance.
"When life offers only constant suffering without relief — like being trapped forever in a cage with no light, tasteless food, and no connection to the world — the option to end that suffering becomes rational, not cowardly. "
Then a rescue crew comes and rescues you. Now you had an hour left to survive. The rescue team arrived in 15 minutes, you killed yourself in two minutes.
Suicide is a defeatist and weak mindset. We realize things take hard work which we've broached which can include suffering and agony. This is how victors are made in sports , in wars, in illness survivors, even to people on life support.
I don't believe the opposing side is against happiness and having joy but yet believes it is more rational to take away a chance at it by concentrating only on the bad.
This is what pushes optimism a little further than being cynical. Pessimism sells yourself short while optimism causes you to invest in yourself for further gain which in the end makes all the suffering through the bad more worth it.
"If you are forced into a life where you can’t change anything and there’s no hope, choosing death might be more humane than being sentenced to endless misery."
Then let the circumstances and elements kill you. If you're going to die anyway like you really know the future, right, even though the future is uncertain , why cut your chances for a turnaround?
You think you're going to starve to death, so you kill yourself potentially in a more excruciating way, why not give it the chance where something or someone at the last minute came to your aid by chance ?
We don't know the future or what can come to our survival and perhaps for the better.
We don't know there will be "endless misery". We can't settle to rationalize on "might be".
Think on it .
You may want to consider at least 24 hours for time of arguments going forward.
Many religious books say suicide is a crime and it's a gift by God but the counter to this is would you use a gift which is causing you harm for example a phone cover with spikes on it or a water bottle which leaks plastic into it slowly causing cancer you won't right? Any person logically would throw it even if it was a gift similarly if life gets so bad that it no longer is worth living why not to get disposed of it?
WE DO NOT KNOW THE FUTURE. Let's not act like we determine it in a single moment on a rash move supposedly as an illusion to make it certain.
Round 3
Forfeited
Exactly. Extend the timing out.
Case closed.
Honestly ,valid
I am too cute to die.