Originally posted by PalynkaWhat about another option if you were to keep pushing someone beyond their limits untill they became suicidal...as this would be possible.If they commit suicide...is it murder?
Option 1: Not a suicide.
The person who jumps has no intent of killing himself. Death is inevitable at that time. He has but the choice of the type of death, not the moment. The moment is already there!
A few seconds may make a difference for no1marowdy, but for me his decision has nothing to do with the moment. It's like saying that all ancient sailo ...[text shortened]... n has the sole objective of terminating one's life quicklier.
Option 4: Suicide. Obviously.
Originally posted by Palynka
Option 1: Not a suicide.
The person who jumps has no intent of killing himself. Death is inevitable at that time. He has but the choice of the type of death, not the moment. The moment is already there!
A few seconds may make a difference for no1marowdy, but for me his decision has nothing to do with the moment. It's like saying that all ancient sailors who were forced to "walk the plank" commited suicide if they jumped. Ridiculous.
Are you saying that there is a certain time frame where it goes from suicide to
formality? What is that time frame? 10 seconds? 2 minutes? 20 minutes?
2 hours? 2 weeks? 10 years?
On what basis to you select a certain time frame and why is it not entirely arbitrary?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioPalynka as i understand was saying time isn't the relevant factor.The intent of the person is.I think you talk of the irrelevance...which is fine.
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Option 1: Not a suicide.
The person who jumps has no intent of killing himself. Death is inevitable at that time. He has but the choice of the type of death, not the moment. The moment is already there!
A few seconds may make a difference for no1marowdy, but for me his decision has nothing to do with the moment. ...[text shortened]... n what basis to you select a certain time frame and why is it not entirely arbitrary?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b] I think you and No1 would argue - probably correctly - that this should still be called suicide. But so what? Don't you accept there is a moral difference between someone who casts themselves out of a window when in enormous pain and fear and knowing they are going to die and someone who calmly shoots themselves in the head despite having family etc. and access to all manner of palliative care?
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Option 1: Not a suicide.
The person who jumps has no intent of killing himself. Death is inevitable at that time. He has but the choice of the type of death, not the moment. The moment is already there!
A few seconds may make a difference for no1marowdy, but for me his decision has nothing to do with the moment. ...[text shortened]... n what basis to you select a certain time frame and why is it not entirely arbitrary?
Nemesio
The person in the first case could quite clearly be out of their mind with fear and may well be jumping only out of instinct (pain reflex or even a twisted sense of self-preservation). Surely that absolves them to some extent? Even the Catholic church seems to think so.
Is this argument about defining the word suicide or about the morality of suicide?
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellIt isn't correct...
I think you and No1 would argue - probably correctly - that this should still be called suicide. But so what? Don't you accept there is a moral difference between someone who casts themselves out of a window when in enormous pain and fear and knowing they are going to die and someone who calmly shoots themselves in the head despite having family etc. ...[text shortened]... think so.
Is this argument about defining the word suicide or about the morality of suicide?[/b]
Suicide....intentional killing of oneself.
There intentions were not to kill themselves.They wanted to live.
Murder...intentional and unlawful killing of human being by another.
The people who flew the planes and those who organised it ALL had the INTENTION to kill.
COME ON....If those responsible who aint already dead get caught and go to trial then dont waste my time telling me they going to get let off because those people commited suicide.What the Hell you talking about!!!
Originally posted by windmillAll of them? How can you possibly know that? And is there a moral difference between those who jumped knowing they were chosing a less gruesome death and those who jumped thinking it offered a better chance of survival?
There intentions were not to kill themselves.They wanted to live.
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]No, I didn't say that. The moment for me is wider than in marauder's view. For him, one minute, a few seconds, makes all the difference. For me death is there, at that moment, it makes no difference how many seconds or minutes he lives by taking one or the other choice.
Originally posted by Palynka
[b]Option 1: Not a suicide.
The person who jumps has no intent of killing himself. Death is inevitable at that time. He has but the choice of the type of death, not the moment. The moment is already there!
A few seconds may make a difference for no1marowdy, but for me his decision has nothing to do with the moment. ...[text shortened]... n what basis to you select a certain time frame and why is it not entirely arbitrary?
Nemesio
You should be directing that question at marauder. I said nothing about a formal strict decision. He implied it.
1 edit
Originally posted by windmillI don't think you understand. I am talking about people who know they are going to die anyway _chosing_ to die in a quicker and less painful way. At that moment, they may indeed want to die (quickly and without pain). Yes, given the choice they would rather not die at all; but that is not the choice they are faced with.
lol....you are a joke.
Some of the less frantic jumpers may well have been in this situation. My point is they should not be criticised for what they did, even if it could indeed be classed as suicide.
PS If you don't understand something, perhaps you should ask someone to clarify rather than be so rude.
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio: "As someone said, analogies are imperfect, but they can strive to clarify a person's position."
As someone said, analogies are imperfect, but they can strive
to clarify a person's position.
Let's make a few scenarios:
Option 1: A person is in a room of a burning building. It is on
fire because of an electrical failure and not because of any malice.
The person is trapped and the flames are becoming unendurable.
They may choose to let the f ...[text shortened]... or things distinguishes that scenario from the remaining three
(or whatever number).
Nemesio
Except yours. What is your position in all this ?
Originally posted by PalynkaNo, I didn't but Darfius stated it. Again from an earlier post:
No, I didn't say that. The moment for me is wider than in marauder's view. For him, one minute, a few seconds, makes all the difference. For me death is there, at that moment, it makes no difference how many seconds or minutes he lives by taking one or the other choice.
You should be directing that question at marauder. I said nothing about a formal strict decision. He implied it.[/b]
Darfius: Committing suicide is a one way ticket to hell. It shows a complete and utter lack of belief that God can help you through anything. In other words, even if he had faith, he lost it at that last moment.
Didn't the people on the ledges at the WTC lose faith "at that last moment?"
That is the state of mind I'm addressing; as I've repeatedly stated, I have no moral objections to suicide at all under any circumstances. But I do object to the attempts here to change the meaning of the term in order to escape the theological question raised.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDarfius is forgetting (or has never read) the story of Samson in the OT. Samson was captured by the Philistines and chained between two pillars while they all celebrated. On his request, god gave him the strength to collapse the pillars and kill himself and everyone in the building. It seems that god is capable of condoning and even helping someone commit suicide.
No, I didn't but Darfius stated it. Again from an earlier post:
Darfius: Committing suicide is a one way ticket to hell. It shows a complete and utter lack of belief that God can help you through anything. In other words, even if he had faith, he lost it at that last moment.
Didn't the people on the ledges at the WTC lose faith "at that l ...[text shortened]... empts here to change the meaning of the term in order to escape the theological question raised.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe good doctor is correct. (He's only good when he's right. 🙂)
How can you deduce the jumper's intention? Isn't is possible that their intentions were to escape the deadly flames? That is, couldn't their intentions for jumping have been the preservation of their life, especially if they had assessed that they would live longer by taking that route?
Why do you say the jumpers intended to end their life? ...[text shortened]... y knew the consequences of their actions? That doesn't distinguish them from those who stayed.
It is not suicide if the jumpers decisions is based on improving his odds of survival.
It is interesting that is the jumpers believes they will die if they stay or jump - that an active action will cause a less painful death - it would appear to be a case of situational ethics. Kill me now to prevent my slower more painful death. (sorry if that was a little incoherent - but you know what I mean, no?)
no1 scenario can be extended to physician assisted suicide. The main difference is an extension of the time frame - i.e. the circumstances. Can suicide be wrong in all cases.
Of course with the jumpers - we need to assume it is suicide for the sake of argument - and we can not really judge if the jumpers are intending to take their own lives or trying to approve their odds of survival.
I haven't read all the post but wanted to give no1 and the Doc kudos for an interesting debate.
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemGood catch! Hmmmm. Instead of physician assisted suicide, we have God assisted suicide. Wow!
Darfius is forgetting (or has never read) the story of Samson in the OT. Samson was captured by the Philistines and chained between two pillars while they all celebrated. On his request, god gave him the strength to collapse the pillars and kill himself and everyone in the building. It seems that god is capable of condoning and even helping someone commit suicide.
Good case for saying the suicide is not necessarily wrong. What would be the biblical case for saying it is wrong?