ODBT: Suicide Is Objectively Wrong

Thank you for your response. :) If a person has not, as Kant puts forward, a 'perfectally rational will' then they are exempt from moral judgements. If we are being pedantic whilst reading this, then I will change the sentence to they are exempt from valid moral judgements. Now if someone has depression of anxiety they, and I said this initially, can be considered less conscious or less of a free agent. However I feel that this is becoming a red herring and is side tracking us from the debate, I think we're on the same wavelength here anyhow and we probably ought (objective I jest) to leave this 'issue'. As for the social contract argument, I feel you are not addressing the issue that you feel you are. You state, "social contracts do not entail we live by them, you can break a conduct". Ofcourse you can, I'm not saying that we cannot. However, what I am stating is that the breaking of a conduct or the breaking of a social contract, is immorality. It is immoral to break a social contract. To refer to the topic at hand, it is the breaking of social contracts via suicide, that is immoral. This social contract is objective, that is to say that using the definition we both agree'd too, it is without the distortion of personal feelings or prejudices. So we can both say that Suicide is objectively wrong according to social contractarianism. You state this yourself when calling this my objective moral system. The issue is this. You are assuming that a rule must also state why the rule must be followed. Or that a rule must express why it is to be followed. You are speaking of rules that enforce rules and not rules themselves. Anticipating this I founded my rules in something objective, and something that the two of us must presuppose. That there is a world, universe, or something that actually is. I believe that I stated I base my claim on the way the world actually is. I have placed Social Contracts into this realm, an objective realm. A realm in which anyone who accepts that there is a world, that we can learn, and that there is ethics must subscribe too. You must either state that the world is not objective, or that we cannot learn? Or quite absurdly, denounce the existence of the world? I would like to agree with you that social contracts do not entail that we live by them. We could quite happily live a life breaking social contracts left right and center. But you must acknowledge you live an immoral life. I can break the social contract dictating that I ought not commit suicide. But simply because I can, well this doesn't necessitate that it is not objective. You make the statement that I never elaborate on how suicide can harm others, which is true, I didn't, however I felt that it was self-evident with the analogy that I had used. Self-harm can cause pain, and damage to the lives around you. If you don't believe this to be true, I want you to ask the person closest to you how they would deal with or feel if you commited suicide tomorrow. Nota bene, I am not saying that life is contingent on the person closest to you. It is one, of many, way of demonstrating the negative social, emotional, physical and intellectual impacts of a persons suicide upon the people around them. "My friend commented suicide because people kicked her and called her a **** even thought she was a virgin. I did all I could but it just wasnt good enough and I regret that." [1] Now onto my tolerance point. Subjectivism prescribes tolerance. You state objective rules that we all must live by yourself. That is where I get this notion. If your subjectivism is true, then you absolutely must not and you necessarily have no right whatsoever to make the following statements, "whatever decisions should be respected", "that no other person should enforce their own ideals onto someone else". These two statements go against the very nature of subjectivism. Subjectivism refutes itself here. Now you can state that this is mere opinion, and it is merely your opinion. But that is all you can say. And if you do say. Again, you are refuting the very propositions you put forward. We shall take a look at one of the propositions you have put forward. "That no other person should enforce their own ideals onto someone else". According to this view, taking it to it's logical conclusion, you've got no grounds to state this. Why? Well if you state this, I might jump back and claim that you are being dogmatic, that you are trying to tell me how to act, what I ought not and ought to do. The very thing you are trying to propose is being refuted by the fact you propose it, by the fact that you are trying to convince me, or force your own ideal, upon me. Again, I ask you, what is it to be, you tell me that your proposition despite being grounded in subjectivism is objective and applies to all and thus refutes the grounds at which you stand, or you act consistent with what you propose and state nothing? In other words, do you refute yourself or silence yourself? I want to clarify. I am not stating that the pregnant woman scenario I put forward, and the torture scenario equates to suicide. And where you derived this notion, I have no idea. I was putting forward examples of immoral actions. I am not saying, all moral actions are synonymous and all immoral actions are synonymous. What I am saying is that they share a common property, the way the world actually is dictating what should not happen (I used the words should and ought synonymously here). I believe you misread, or misinterpreted what was there, as I used the following "falls into this bracket". "Kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach is appregending someone elses will". On what grounds is this immoral? Your own opinion subjective grounds that you seem so adamant upon enforcing upon me? Or are they based upon an objective system? I have set the foundations for my ethics, I will now show you how suicide is destructive. The following website I stumbled upon accidentally and I feel can show you how traumatic it is for those who have lost someone to suicide. http://www.experienceproject.com... This website is full of stories about the pain and trauma of suicide. This website has an expert, talking about the social effects of suicide. http://answers.webmd.com...http://www.medicinenet.com... A key difference between suicide and murder is the person doing the action. So some of the effects of suicide are close to that of murder. We don't suggest that there is only 1 victim in murder, the murdered, we also believe that the family members become affected and that the people around the murdered are affected so why is it when we imagine a suicide we imagine an absence of victims? I find it absurd. I am not saying they are synonymous, but they are not mutually exclusive. Some, not all, some of the factors affecting those who have lost a love one to murder are equal to that of suicide. I grant you, this is speculation, but I think we can agree that it has enough inductive force to be considered valid. Completed suicide and psychiatric illness in relatives are risk factors for suicide. [2]References:[1] - http://www.experienceproject.com...;I advise that if you feel confirmation bias, search through the other stories.[2] - http://www.thelancet.com...(02)11197-4/fulltextUnder the paragraph interpretation. I would like to apologise to anyone and everyone if my writing has not been up to scratch. I am very busy recently and so I have not been able to check thoroughly everything that I have wrote. Thank you. :)