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

It was my first on this website, has helped define my impressions of it and, as such, has been a valuable experience. Moreover, I wish to clarify that I completely respect the other party's arguments, regardless of whether or not I agree. I hope that others have learned things from this debate as well. Nonetheless, the debate is not over and I have a few more words to offer. The opponent has said that there must have been an entity that caused the Big Bang. I would assume that the Big Bang signified the beginning of time, in which case the Law of Conservation of Energy is not violated. Other alternatives are that a Big Bang event is a product of some unknown phenomenon related to dark matter, or there was some entity in another, incompatible dimension that does not exist in our universe that created the universe and with it, the Big Bang (it couldn't exist and interact in the universe because there was no universe to exist in yet). Both of these latter explanations, however, are based on ideas that are not meant or impossible to have supporting evidence. The opponent then said that gravity would bring things closer, and as I said, it has brought large bodies together such as star systems and galaxies. But these bodies are drifting outwards due to the energy of the Big Bang. The opponent also says that all “natural” events must “benefit” something else and asks that I provide a scenario. I propose that on an asteroid drifting through space that will never support life and that is too far from any life-bearing planets to be observed or noticed, a pebble has shifted due to gravitational reasons. In the way I see it, the asteroid, which might not affect any other celestial bodies other than with extremely trivial gravitational pull, has no necessary beneficial existence whatsoever to anything else. Also, the pebble, by moving, will affect centre of gravity by an unfathomably insignificant amount, but does not necessarily have any effect on the trajectory of the asteroid. Because the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace, the asteroid may not ever collide with anything of relevance. Therefore, the shifting of the pebble, despite being a natural occurrence, may not have caused any indisputably beneficial effects to another entity. I ask, then, what was the purpose of having the pebble shift, and what specifically defines this purpose? The opponent then goes on to advocate “why” as a question as important as “how”. I agree, because I feel that all unanswered questions are significant, but my implications were in reference to those who seek out “why” and pretend it satisfies “how”. The opposition argues that universal purpose is not necessarily equal to moral value. Not only do I agree, but I stated that in the sentence right after the one that was quoted. Though this may make the opponent's paragraph redundant, it was also asked if there is no universal purpose, why there is sentience. I do not see how purpose, existence, and sentience relate, but I have already said that evolution has drastically affected life and I do not see how it could not have created sentience and human intelligence, given that humans on average have the greatest known brain-mass ratio. About the definition of a person (again), I would argue that the matter of personhood is up to debate. Regardless, it'd be too late to change anything according to which of us is correct, so I suggest that the matter be now dropped. Now, regarding the opponent’s beliefs, I respect that it's possible that they are true, at least to some extent. However, I strongly believe that it is a choice – a valid choice – to give value to death. We do not know who or what is factually correct, but we can guess and believe in those guesses. I might make such a guess; I might think that death is a thing reasonably deserving of my faith, in a sense not unlike how others hold faith in life. Despite my tone that may suggest otherwise, I do not challenge that – I just disagree. My opinion remains unchanged because another’s opinion bears no more evidence than my own, and with my acknowledgement of that, my explanation by design may justify my rightful belief, but not convince others of any truth to be gleaned from it. But there are those who would agree with these values and seek death to purge themselves of a perhaps tainted existence. And so who is to say that they are wrong when they commit themselves to a viable possibility, as accurate as any other? And what is morality to speak of their wrongs when they have done what they feel is right? Regardless, just to challenge one thing about the opponent’s beliefs (though I suspect the opponent already knows an elaborate answer for it), I ask how a person could be conscious and capable of making such a choice as accepting life if the unborn person does not have a brain to think, to know how to accept, and to recognize that it is being asked to live and accept certain terms (among which is that one will not commit suicide, other than through euthanasia). Also by those same beliefs, if a person is supposed to by ridiculed, tortured, and/or put through pain by others in life and beyond, is that person supposed to commit suicide if he/she/it does so? The opponent proceeds to state that it's implausible for my provided situation to exist. I ask how. But furthermore, it is said that one’s experience cannot improve by ending. It can, because life can be a negative experience. Non-existence is neutral, which of course is better than something negative. As I said, being tortured perpetually is a negative experience, and so death is an improved experience, simply by not being a conscious experience at all. Therefore, the negative experience has been remedied – it has improved. Next, the opponent asks what designed life. By my beliefs, it would be evolution and nature. Natural selection and certain stimuli in the world have lasting effects on the adaptation of life, and among the products is the human race. It is also asked why humanity was designed assuming an absence of purpose, and the above explanation still applies. It was asked what was meant in the sentence “I want to sigh in relief…” I am referring to death. In my last breath, I’d sigh in relief, knowing that I died the way I want to die. I’d return to the state of non-existence I came from: an infinite death. Last of my counter-responses, the opponent seems to have misread and/or misunderstood. I said and meant that this debate would have originally accommodated scenarios, because it was supposed to be about whether or not suicide could violate one specific moral code, and so if the Con party had at least one valid scenario, that party would have won. But since we removed that one moral code, all this can be dismissed. I was absolutely not talking about the opponent’s arguments being irrelevant. Thank you, Yamashita: intelligent conversations like this are hard to come by.