Suicide with the Sole Purpose of Improving Personal Experience of Life Is, in Itself, Never Immoral

As the opponent does not agree with or otherwise has rejected the provided model of morality to some extent and has argued without consideration of it, the model will be dismissed. To first respond to arguments given by my opponent, life does not have a universal purpose. Accepted science, challenged and meticulouslyanalyzed for faults by innumerable thousands, has concluded that life is asimple product of a conglomeration of atoms aligning the wrong way one eventful day. No purpose has been assigned by any being in this process. Life has changed significantly since, from single-cell organisms to the human race and the entities that we recognize as persons in this debate; yet at no point between was a universal purpose for the existence of life given. Life is still life, and if it had no purpose before, it would not havepurpose now, unless as sentient persons, we have the privilege of defining the purpose for which life exists in relation to reality; frankly, I see no scenario in which that would be true, given that non-sentient life has no purpose. In continuation from the above, I recognize that the opponent may have been referring to a non-universal purpose – something more specific to individuals and objects. For example, a mother and father may haveintended to have a child to bring joy to them, and thus any child of theirswould carry the purpose of bringing joy to its parents, technically speaking. In this sense, a creator has the right of fabricating a purpose for its actions (if it so desires), in this case, designing a creation. But in virtually all cases, purpose assigned to a person in this way violates the idea of removing other, external aspects of life such as other people and how they would react to the suicidal person’s purpose being unfulfilled. The only exception is if the person somehow creates its own sentience/personhood, in which case no purpose could be assigned because one needs to be capable of thinking to assign a purpose. It is important to note that the fulfillment of this kind of purpose between creator and creation holds no moral value because the creator would not be in a position to define morality. My opponent rejected my model of morality that I created by myself, and for that, it can no longer be wholly and indisputably correct. I could have argued for its being reasonable, but it would be impossible to prove that my idea of morality is quote-unquote true. Morality is dynamic and is influenced by those who are affected by the world around them. The Big Bang was not moral orimmoral. A boy pushing a younger child off a swing to get a turn is immoral, I think. A lot of people would think the same as well. If enough people think so, does that mean it must be immoral? It would seem so, but the point is that one person does not solely dictate morality in the presence of others. Suicide is a solution to life and all the problems that entail. Life produces many things that the person may or may not enjoy. It is death that brings a close to those events. If someone feels that an absence of life is a better state to be in, or if someone values non-existence or a form of afterlife that said person believes in over life, why can’t the person skip the remainder of life? Maybe I don’t view life as a privilege. Maybe I want to die. Maybe I’ve lived as long as I need to. Life must conclude eventually, and when it does, everything achieved during it is lost regardless. The endpoint remains the same, and of the infinite points in between, there were a few more spent in death, and if I like death, where’s the moral conflict? I didn’t earn my life. I didn’t choose tolive. I was forced into this existence with neither my permission nor my prior knowledge, and yet I have an obligation to live this life until something beyond my intentions kills me? How is that moral?