Good morning, Tim & Robert.

We can attempt to have a worthwhile discussion on this subject, although I am not encouraged by your responses.  If you want to get anything out of this, you both need to get past your hang-ups about the fact I am a Catholic.  Nothing I have written in this thread (nor any argument I have ever made in this forum) is predicated upon Catholic principles.  I apply those principles to my life and to my family alone.  As far as what the rules should be that guide us all as we try to get along in society together, I have always argued those from secular principles (frequently Objectivist) that any rational person can recognize as true, because they arise from human nature.  Human nature is part of reality.  It exists.  It has norms which should inform us as to what is necessary to fully realize our humanity and rise above our animalistic foundations.  (To the extent I depart from Objectivism, it is where Objectivism fails to recognize these norms.)  I hope that this statement will prevent any further misguided attempts to impute to me things I have not written.

To the subject at hand:  You do not “own” your life.  It is not property to be acquired, traded, or destroyed.  It is not even analogous to property.  Life precedes property.  The reason for this should be evident to any Objectivist.

Life is the standard.

Not the good life, the healthy life, the desirable life.  Life, period.  Your life is the standard against which everything else is valued.  To extinguish your life is to extinguish the value of everything.  It is nihilism to declare, “Nothing matters.”  If you can immolate the standard, against which all else matters, what can you not logically destroy along with it?  What restraint remains once the value of everything is zero?  It cannot be argued that it would be immoral to destroy anything more than your life, because you are destroying the very standard, your self-interest, which (for an Objectivist) defines morality.

Suicide destroys everything, including morality, and so makes nonsense of any attempt to justify it.  Without the standard of life, there can be no value in an action taken.  There can be no purpose in it, for only with life is there purpose.  The value of relief from physical suffering, which is so often argued, is meaningless, because without life there are no values.  This should be obvious.  You can hardly say you will find pleasure in the relief from pain, because you will be dead.  Dead.  You cannot be happier dead than alive, because dead men are, well, dead.  Indeed, what can you obtain by suicide?  Nothing.

Thus, suicide is the epitome of irrationality.

So, it should be plain that euthanasia is too – except that it is worse.  You corrupt another person in your irrational pursuit.  You persuade him to become a murderer on your behalf.  That is despicable, if you give this some thought.  As I said above, when you destroy your life, the standard for everything, you destroy morality.  In the absence of morality, you have no restraints.  When it comes to euthanasia in that nihilistic state, you turn another person, probably a loved one, into a murderer – and you perversely laud it as a good thing.

If life is the standard, there can be no other conclusion about the morality of suicide and euthanasia.

Regards,
Bill

Concerning suicide: Suppose one were trapped in the top half a skyscraper into which a fuel-laden jumbo jet had been crashed. Terrifying black smoke and roiling balls of flame wipe out all hope of escape. The heat is growing and the smoke is becoming unbearable.

To jump would be suicidal. Better to be pro-life and choke to death on unbreathable smoke, or cook. Perhaps one’s body will make the decision for one, but this should be resisted.

Added later: I see that Bill has mentioned this example, but I don't think his stance is tenable. So I'll let it stand.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 6/04, 10:24am)

Bill said: “For example, a person leaping from a tall building to escape a fire is no doubt hoping for something to break his fall.”

In the majority of fires that is probably true. Not on September 11 and similar situations, I believe. Many of them likely chose to die quickly by their own hand rather than horribly by cooking and choking; they no doubt saw the fate of those who preceded them, and waited till the last possible moment (in hopes of rescue). In many cases, too, the jump may have been precipitated by a powerful impulse to end the uncertainties whirling through their tortured minds.

In other cases the “decision” may have been an involuntary reflex to a rapidly deteriorating situation. This last would be the only motive that is morally forgivable for Bill.

Ayn Rand really knew what she was talking about when she said mysticism is anti-life.

[Added later:] Once again our letters crossed in the mails. Bill, Ayn Rand’s observations were to establish that the fact of life gives rise to the phenomenon of values in the universe. It does not imply that a man cannot choose abstract values that might imply his own death. Rand is always emphasizing that man must pursue the life of man qua man, because that is his proper mode of survival in principle. It is well known that a person can be tortured to the point of insanity. Extreme, hopeless suffering has nothing to do with man’s life.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 6/04, 3:39pm)

>>... Ayn Rand’s observations were to establish that the fact of life gives rise to the phenomenon of values in the universe. It does not imply that a man cannot choose abstract values that might imply his own death. Rand is always emphasizing that man must pursue the life of man qua man, because that is his proper mode of survival in principle.<<

True.  But in making that point she did not leave room for suicide as a moral act.  To wit, Peikoff wrote in context of arguing that a man's life must mean something more than mere survival:  "What then is the standard of moral value?  A valid code of morality, Ayn Rand concludes, a code based on reason and proper to man, must hold man's life as its standard of value. 'All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.'"  [OPAR, p.219, italics in original, underline is mine.]

Rand seals the deal against suicide with this statement:  "Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it."  [Atlas Shrugged, p.940.]  Because the destruction of your life is evil and suicide destroys your life, suicide is an immoral act.  That is the plain reading of Rand on this issue.  That is what makes sense to me.  Of course, this leaves plenty of room for taking action that puts your life at risk -- indeed, nearly total risk, like the emergency or battlefield situations that have been posed -- and it leaves room for refraining from action to sustain your life that would be immoral -- for example, robbing a bank to pay for a life-saving operation.  But it does not leave room for deliberately and purposefully seeking your own extinction.

However, Rodney, I'll concede your superior knowledge of Rand's writings and Objectivism.  She may have explained her thoughts on suicide that somehow squares the morality of the act with what she has written elsewhere.  Or maybe I am missing something.  So if I've got Rand wrong on this issue, I'll be interested in knowing how as a matter of intellectual curiosity.  I will say, however, I am not resting my argument that suicide is immoral upon authority.  I'm resting it upon my own understanding of life as the standard of all value.

Regards,

Bill