 |
Answering Pro-Life Arguments
This article answers some common pro-life arguments. Note that
pro-life arguments which are concerned with morality or rationality
have already been addressed in part 4 of the ash FAQ. The following
arguments are different. They do not even attempt to convince others
that suicide is wrong (even though the illegitimacy of suicide is used
as an underlying assumption). They simply aim to convince people not
to commit suicide. In fact, for any given individual these arguments
might be perfectly reasonable. What we are contesting is that these
arguments apply to everyone.
These arguments do not use logic as the main device for persuasion. Instead, they exploit the way people think, feel and behave to make people feel better, raise their hopes or delay their decisions.
The Comparison Argument.
This argument compares your current situation to another situation (that you or someone else was in) which appears to be much worse, or at least just as bad. For example:"Everyone has problems that they have to deal with in life."
"I can recommend a book that helped me dismantle my suicidal world-view: Man's Search for Meaning, by Victor Frankle. He was a Jewish doctor that saw his whole family perish in concentration camps, and survived several years in one himself. I thought I had it tough until I read his story. The fact that he still loved life after what he experienced is inspiring in itself."
"You haven't experience half the shit I had to go through. I was raised in a poor family, I had no job and no future but I made it. I never thought about suicide"
However, this argument goes both ways. Why not compare to people who are *more* fortunate then us? Why does the existence of people, who are less happy than us yet still live, make one think that we should live too? Maybe the real conclusion we should arrive to is that these unhappy people should also commit suicide, and the sooner the better, after all - they are in an even worse condition. It would put an end to their misery, but if they are stupid enough to want to continue to live that is their choice...
If somebody is unhappy enough to commit suicide then why should comparison suddenly make things seem better? Perhaps this is the point the comparison argument is trying to make: Lets think of the time before you were born. Theoretically you could wind up as the body of any one of the babies being born at that time on earth. You could have been born in Africa and died in famine, you could have been born in a country were basic human rights were breached. But you weren't. In this giant lottery you got a pretty good number. Doesn't that make you happy? You are in a pretty good place!!!
This way of thinking still doesn't help. We could still have gotten better choices in the lottery. The reason why the comparison argument really does make us feel better is connected to how our brain is wired. This is a subject of research in the field of evolutionary psychology [1]. Our feelings have evolved for the sole purpose of passing our genes to the next generation, and the degree of success of any individual is dependent on his state in comparison to others of his kind. Individuals who are less fortunate are "punished" with bad feelings which urge them to improve their state and increase their chances in procreation.
In our time such feelings are in fact a burden. The flexibility of our brains allowed us to outgrow the path of natural selection. Our survival and chances to have offspring are not dependent on our success relative to others.
For some examples about the peculiarities of comparison we first consider a world where everyone is blind, then this would be the norm and nobody would be unhappy about the situation. On the other hand consider a world where everyone else had wings ( flying is a great way to avoid traffic jams ... ) then people without wings ( us for instance ) would have significant disadvantages... for example we would need large, cumbersome, costly vehicles called "cars" just to reach places. In such a world we would be less happy although nothing changed about us. Our situation only worsened relative to others. ( "Hey dudes... did you see that slow wingless weirdo ? Yeah that was disgusting..." )
This can also be extrapolated across time. King Solomon was wealthy , smart, had power and 1000 wives ( what are the chances that 1000 women will have a headache on the same night ? ;-) ) but if he had seen the standard of living today he would probably be envious ( "I love this food... what do you call it? a Big Mac?" ).
In the same manner we should be envious of people who live in the future. In comparison to them our lives are primitive.
There is no logic to comparison, it does not improve your condition. However, this way of looking at things might actually make you feel better. However,it doesn't work for everyone, and even when it does work, it still might not provide enough comfort to overcome the desire to die. But this is not your fault, since logically, there is no reason why it should work.
The Postponement Argument
"Don't commit suicide now, you can always do it later. You should postpone such an important decision." It is true that it is an important decision. However not making a decision is in itself a decision, one with it's own dire consequences - you continue to suffer from what ever has driven you to think about suicide in the first place.There is Hope
"You are only 20, Your whole life is ahead of you. Something is bound to happen."
It's true, there is a possibility that I might be happy. For some it is quite slim, but still a chance nonetheless. At some point in the future there might be a "future me" which will love life and would be sorry had I committed suicide. The catch is that if one kills himself then he has no future.
There are four possibilities:
| You decide to live | You decide to die | |
|---|---|---|
| Had you lived, then with probability p life would stay the same or get worse |
-1 | 0 |
| Had you lived, then with probability 1 - p life would get better |
1 | 0 |
This is of course a very extreme abstraction of the problem [2], but hopefully we can get something out of it. The numbers in the table indicate how good this combination of options is (relative to the other ones) from the point of view of the individual who is facing such a dilemma. The larger the number, the better the outcome. These numbers are in no way intended to be precise in any sense. The "die" column contains the same number on both rows since if someone dies it makes no difference for him what his life would be like had he lived. Suicide turns out to be just a mediocre outcome ( 0 ), however if one does not think that things will improve, its appeal increases.
An anti-suicide advocate would say that the chances that things will get better is high, but truthfully neither of us know what will happen, so why not just play it safe? An argument at this point is at a dead end, there are simply too many variables. How will your life turn out? What are the "real numerical" values which should be in the table? There is probably no way to answer these questions.
To make things interesting lets hypothesize for a bit... Suppose that a "future me" could come back in time to convince me not to commit suicide.
Talking to a "future me" is not something I do on a regular basis... but seriously, what better opponent could you possibly find? He is the only one who actually knows the outcome of the previous table, and he of all people wants me to continue to live.
Future me: "I never dreamed that life could be this great. Please don't commit suicide. If you wont you will end up like me. I promise you it is great."me: "Well thats easy for you to say. All of the shit is far behind you. What do you care of what I will have to go through to become you. You are at the end of a trail where *I* will have to suffer passing. Why should I do this for you"
Fme: "But I *am* you."
me: "No you are not. You are a future me"
Fme: "But you shall become me in time..."
me: "But is it worth the suffering I will have to go through until I become you?"
Fme: "I promise you it wont take a lot of time and you will hardly suffer any more. I remember the time when I was you. The abrupt change surprised me. I am glad I am alive to tell you this".
me: "Thats very touching but how can I believe you? You have absolutely no concern for my feelings. All you care about is that you will continue to exist in your state of bliss. You know that if I take my life you will vanish. What do you care what will happen to me until I become you? It's already behind you?"
Fme: "Come on. I do care! We can get through this together!"
me: "We are not 'together', we are practically rivals. Although we do share some common goals, we are competing over resources. You would probably want me to save more money, to exercise and to go on a diet until I become you. And although we both will benefit, I will be the only one who will pay for it.
Fme: "So are you going to go through with it?"
me: "I might. It is my choice."
Fme: "But thats murder. You are going to kill me."
me: "No I am going to kill *me*! *You* would have never been."
Fme: "But it *is* murder. You are killing another person. You said yourself that we are not the same."
me: "How can I murder somebody that never lived? How can you have rights if you never lived? Besides, I am the one in control and I will decide what will happen to me. Thats how life is".
Fme: "But thats discrimination against future men!"
me: "Yes it is... I know it's sad... I dont have any solutions for you... Please dont cry... Have you ever contemplated suicide?"
This discussion shows that the fact that things will get better is not enough. It is also important to know when and for how long things will be better. Things might get worse again. To precisely weigh the "goodness" of life over a period of time we should have to determine values of goodness for every fixed point in this period and then sum them up. The values in each point in time might be positive or negative and so might be the sum. The exact character of "goodness" will not be defined here. It might be different things for different people.
This is how the values in the table might be calculated. We know it is not possible to find these values, but let us assume that we are given the values by a friendly elf. What can we do with this information?
Probably the most intuitive thing to do is to calculate the expectancy for each each possibility. We will then choose the action, life or death, which maximizes the expectancy of goodness. We calculate the expectancy of an act by summing up the products of the probabilities with their corresponding goodness values according to this act. However, there is a simple counter example for using expectancies. After presenting this example a conjecture, that even this simple model suggests freedom of choice, will be claimed.
In our table there were only 2 possible outcomes ( things get better or stay the same ) and 2 possible actions (live or die). Now we consider more possible outcomes, even an infinite amount. Consider the following 2 lotteries:
A:
| Probability | Amount Won | |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 50,000,000$ |
B:
| Probability | Amount Won | |
|---|---|---|
| 1/2 | 2$ | |
| 1/4 | 4$ | |
| 1/8 | 8$ | |
| ... | ... | |
| 1/2**i | 2**i | |
| ... | ... |
These are both "unrealistic" since you can only win, but what is important here is deciding which one of these lotteries is better. Suppose somebody offers you to participate in these two lotteries, which one would you want? In lottery A we are guaranteed 50,000,000$ in cash! The expectancy of this lottery is 1.0 * 50,000,000$ which is 50,000,000$. That seems hard to beat. Lottery B is a little more tricky. There is 0.5 probability of getting 2$, 0.25 for getting 4$ and so on. There are infinitely many rows in lottery B so the largest prize in lottery B is definitely much much higher than lottery A. There is nothing wrong with the infinity involved in lottery B. A simple computer program could easily generate it. If we calculate the expectancy we get an infinite sum.
0.5*2$ + 0.25*4$ + 0.125*8$ + ... + (1/2**i) * 2**i + ... =
1 + 1 + 1 + ... + 1 + ... = infinity
It turns out that lottery B has a higher expectancy then lottery A but does not seem to be a better choice. In lottery B the probability for winning 50,000,000 or more is approximately 1/50,000,000 but the probability for winning 8$ or less is 7/8. It seems much better to participate in lottery A, to take the 50,000,000$ and run.
Consider the following lotteries:
C:
| Probability | Amount Won | |
|---|---|---|
| 0.000000001 | 50,000,000$ | |
| 0.999999999 | 500$ |
D:
| Probability | Amount Won | |
|---|---|---|
| 0.01 | 700$ | |
| 0.99 | 600$ |
Now we are smarter since we know that the expectancy is not a good way to decide. Is there a better choice between lotteries C and D? One might say that the difference between 500$ and 700$ is not significant. He would rather take C for the chance of being a millioner. Another guy might say that the chance for winning the 50,000,000$ in lottery C is too small. He would rather just have the extra 100$ or 200$. These kind of reasons both seem rational. This seems to suggest that even in this simple model there is no correct answer. Each one chooses what is right for him, and if it is true for this simple example then it is probably true for more complicated and realistic examples.
A better (but more complex) model appears in the article about Normative Models for Rational Suicide .
REFERENCES
[1]
Robert Wright, The Evolution of Despair, TIME Magazine
August 28, 1995 Volume 146, No. 9.
[2] Fred Feldman, Confrontations with the Reaper, Oxford University Press, 1992
