The fourth objection is not difficult to refute; your moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give you the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others
Says who? That’s as much of a moral claim as anything. You may or may not have the legal right .. but in this cases you do, or you would have nothing to object to.
The second objection may be rejected on the basis that suicidal individuals are not incompetent nor beyond reason
Obviously, that’s a continuum.
The first objection relies upon the notion that suicide is an irreversible decision which many come to regret, as evidenced by suicide attempt survivors who do not reattempt. Unfortunately, this argument suffers from the most literal form of survivorship bias; those who are less committed to dying, and thus more likely to regret a suicide attempt, will use less lethal methods, while those who are more committed to dying, and thus less likely to regret a suicide attempt, will use more lethal methods
That doesn’t imply “never intervene”, it implies “make a judgment”.
By prohibiting suicide prevention, the stigma surrounding suicide ideation is reduced. The afflicted can speak to their loved ones and be honest with mental health professionals without risk of imprisonment, and are empowered to seek treatment on their own terms
That will help some and harm others. There are people regret their suicide attempts, and many of them were saved by interventions.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! You make many good points.
Says who?
The notion that one’s moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give one the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others is cruxy; if you disagree, than my conclusion does not apply to you. However, I will note that a society in which everyone can impose their values upon eachother (or, worse, a society in which one group imposes their values upon everyone else) would quickly devolve into chaos or tyranny. I would also like to avoid isolated demands for rigor; do you continue to believe people ought to be able to impose their values upon others in other contexts, such as conversion therapy (borne of the values condemning homosexuality and potentially protecting homosexuals from eternal torment) or restrictions upon women’s education (borne of the values denoting women as inferior to men)?
Obviously, that’s a continuum.
You are correct. I apologize for any confusion my writing has caused; by “suicidal individuals are not incompetent nor beyond reason”, I intended to say that suicide ideation does not inherently render one mentally incompetent. If an individual is mentally incompetent, they ought to be prevented from committing suicide; if an individual is mentally competent, they ought to be allowed to exercise their autonomy.
That doesn’t imply “never intervene”… [t]here are people regret their suicide attempts...
Using force on a mentally competent individual cannot be justified by your belief that they will regret their actions later. Allow me to restate a sentence from the post:
At the time of the attempt, the [mentally competent] suicidal individual is fully understanding and accepting of the consequences of their actions, and preventing a process they have consented to infringes upon their personal freedoms.
Of course, this is irrelevant to you if you believe that personal/religious values justify the use of force.
The notion that one’s moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give one the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others is cruxy
That isn’t the point. The point is that the argument behind Never Intervene is self defeating: you are imposing a lack of intervention on people who might want intervention, and you are doing so because it’s your own belief …you haven’t shown it is a principle that transcends merely subjective preferences.
, I will note that a society in which everyone can impose their values upon eachothe
I was not calling for the maximum amount of intervention or imposition: I was noting that there is no neutral ground.
I intended to say that suicide ideation does not inherently render one mentally incompetent. If an individual is mentally incompetent, they ought to be prevented from committing suicide; if an individual is mentally competent, they ought to be allowed to exercise their autonomy.
Is there a completely reliable way of determining that?
Using force on a mentally competent individual cannot be justified by your belief that they will regret their actions later
I suppose that would be a problem if you had a reliable method of determining competence. Otherwise it’s a judgment call.
Thank you for your comment! You raise some good points, particularly regarding competence.
people who might want intervention
By definition, if you want to be committed, you have not been involuntarily committed. Involuntary prevention is what I take issue with; I apologize if I have been unclear. If an individual indicates that they would like others to prevent them from committing suicide or they would like to seek assistance for suicidal ideation, they ought to receive the help they require.
it’s your own belief …you haven’t shown it is a principle that transcends merely subjective preferences
My argument is that we all have subjective preferences, and since none of these preferences are inherently superior, we therefore ought to allow each mentally competent individual to decide and act upon their own preferences. I will attempt to demonstrate that it is a principle when my karma recovers or I am able to make another post. (Whichever comes first.)
Is there a completely reliable way of determining that?
Given that nobody here is omniscient, there is no perfect way to determine anything; however, perfect ought not to be the enemy of good. Any adult is mentally competent by default, and may only be considered mentally incompetent if they are currently impaired (severe dementia, psychosis, severe hallucinations, etc). In general, it is safe to assume that those who do not have and do not have a history of mental impairment are mentally competent, and those who have or have a history of mental impairment are not mentally competent.
It’s not that straightforward. Some people might ,while mentally capable, give general consent to being committed if suicidal, but later withdraw it , while incapable ,at least in a professionals judgement.
My argument is that we all have subjective preferences, and since none of these preferences are inherently superior, we therefore ought to allow each mentally competent individual to decide and act upon their own preferences
That’s not well defined in the case above.
perfect ought not to be the enemy of good
But you’re not calling for less involuntary commitment.
Says who? That’s as much of a moral claim as anything. You may or may not have the legal right .. but in this cases you do, or you would have nothing to object to.
Obviously, that’s a continuum.
That doesn’t imply “never intervene”, it implies “make a judgment”.
That will help some and harm others. There are people regret their suicide attempts, and many of them were saved by interventions.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment! You make many good points.
The notion that one’s moral philosophy, personal values, and religion do not give one the right to infringe upon the freedoms of others is cruxy; if you disagree, than my conclusion does not apply to you. However, I will note that a society in which everyone can impose their values upon eachother (or, worse, a society in which one group imposes their values upon everyone else) would quickly devolve into chaos or tyranny. I would also like to avoid isolated demands for rigor; do you continue to believe people ought to be able to impose their values upon others in other contexts, such as conversion therapy (borne of the values condemning homosexuality and potentially protecting homosexuals from eternal torment) or restrictions upon women’s education (borne of the values denoting women as inferior to men)?
You are correct. I apologize for any confusion my writing has caused; by “suicidal individuals are not incompetent nor beyond reason”, I intended to say that suicide ideation does not inherently render one mentally incompetent. If an individual is mentally incompetent, they ought to be prevented from committing suicide; if an individual is mentally competent, they ought to be allowed to exercise their autonomy.
Using force on a mentally competent individual cannot be justified by your belief that they will regret their actions later. Allow me to restate a sentence from the post:
Of course, this is irrelevant to you if you believe that personal/religious values justify the use of force.
That isn’t the point. The point is that the argument behind Never Intervene is self defeating: you are imposing a lack of intervention on people who might want intervention, and you are doing so because it’s your own belief …you haven’t shown it is a principle that transcends merely subjective preferences.
I was not calling for the maximum amount of intervention or imposition: I was noting that there is no neutral ground.
Is there a completely reliable way of determining that?
I suppose that would be a problem if you had a reliable method of determining competence. Otherwise it’s a judgment call.
Thank you for your comment! You raise some good points, particularly regarding competence.
By definition, if you want to be committed, you have not been involuntarily committed. Involuntary prevention is what I take issue with; I apologize if I have been unclear. If an individual indicates that they would like others to prevent them from committing suicide or they would like to seek assistance for suicidal ideation, they ought to receive the help they require.
My argument is that we all have subjective preferences, and since none of these preferences are inherently superior, we therefore ought to allow each mentally competent individual to decide and act upon their own preferences. I will attempt to demonstrate that it is a principle when my karma recovers or I am able to make another post. (Whichever comes first.)
Given that nobody here is omniscient, there is no perfect way to determine anything; however, perfect ought not to be the enemy of good. Any adult is mentally competent by default, and may only be considered mentally incompetent if they are currently impaired (severe dementia, psychosis, severe hallucinations, etc). In general, it is safe to assume that those who do not have and do not have a history of mental impairment are mentally competent, and those who have or have a history of mental impairment are not mentally competent.
It’s not that straightforward. Some people might ,while mentally capable, give general consent to being committed if suicidal, but later withdraw it , while incapable ,at least in a professionals judgement.
That’s not well defined in the case above.
But you’re not calling for less involuntary commitment.