ODBT: Suicide Is Objectively Wrong

IntroductionI want to begin, like my opponent, stating my position. Suicide is objectively wrong. I make this claim on certain grounds, the states of affairs and how the world actually is, the amount of choice/options that a person can have, and the use of the word "voluntarily" and "intentionally", within the definition of suicide. IdealismIn your idealism paragraph you begin with stating that most suicides are acts of will. This is incorrect, and only 1/10th of suicide's can be considered suicidal acts from will, this is because the course that ends in suicide, more often than not, is from depression or anxiety[1]. However within the definition of suicide the use of concepts such as voluntary and intentional allow us to exclude these points (because sufferers of depression can be considered to be less conscious or less of a free agent). Now, at the risk of losing points for being semantic I feel I should state that there is a reason I do so, when I state that suicide is objectively wrong, I want to make it explicit that I am speaking of rationally deduced suicide. This may have been implied, however I don't feel it was sufficient, so I'm stating it. You also make the statement that a "person's most unassailable title is their own life and person". Implying, by extension, one also has the choice to end it. I disagree with this. An through analogy I will show you why.You have to build a house, and you have 1000 pieces of lego (building a house is much like building an identity and life). However, you can only use about 400 of these pieces to create your own house, this you have no choice in and we need 1000 pieces to make our house (this is because of our nature, by nature we are social creatures and spend time with others, granted this differs and is not always 400 pieces but I picked a number at random, some people have higher others lower). We have a spare unused 600 pieces of lego that we can share with others, and others use these pieces of lego to create their own homes and houses. Now you meet friends, maybe that special someone, and you begin to build a house. You've got your 1000 pieces and you're happy. You've invested yourself aswell and others into the building of this house. Now imagine that the special person in your life, maybe has invested 400 pieces into your house takes all these pieces away. The house that you have built and live in has collapsed in on itself because a person has retracted all their pieces (through suicide). And now your life, through an unnecesary action, is destroyed. This view of Social Contractarianism and why our lives are not our own should state why suicide is objectively wrong. It is within mans nature to be social, and because of this social contracts are made and are not to be broken. The world has in built ought's and this is one of them. Suicide, does more damage than it does good. LiberalismThe paragraph on liberalism highlights one of my main issues with the notion of subjectivity. From what I can gather, you seem to be commenting with a lot of the philosophy of John Stuart Mill. His main thesis in On Liberty is dependant upon the notion that you put forward here (against suicide). This notion being, in your words, it is asserted that a person's life belonds to them and that no other person should force their own ideals onto someone else. In the words of John Stuart Mill over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.[2] Mill's account of Liberty and Individual Freedom is founded on the notion of harm. Mill would contend that Suicide is an action that only affects the individual, and is a product of individual choice, and the state has no right whatsoever to interevene here. However, Mill's account of the State is founded upon his Harm Principle. And it's worth noting that in On Liberty Mill never explicitly states what can be considered as harm. And because of this vagueness, we don't know whether or not that the harm that others take from an individuals suicide can be constituted as something the state must interevene in/with. I realise that my position is vulnerable to straw man. But from what was proposed by my opponent, John Stuart Mill's On Liberty expresses all of this and more. It's a good read. Furthermore, the entire notion of subjectivity, here, is completely undermined by the implication of subjectivity, and you have made one of them here. Subjectivity implies Tolerance. You make this connection yourself with comments such as; "whatever decisions should be respected" and "that no other person should force their own ideals onto someone else". The entire notion of subjectivity undermines itself, and becomes self-refuting, in that it proposes objective rules. Rules such as all choices an individual makes are to be respected, and do not be dogmatic. Subjectivism implies either that there are objective rules, tolerance, or you are left with the contention that everybody is infallible and there cannot be genuine moral decisions. Which is it? Subjectivism implies tolerance (something objective) or do we conclude everybody is infallible? Optional Subjective Morality and ConditionsIn 3a it seems you are contending that there are several ways to view ethics. Different views can be caused via upbringing, or different subscriptions to particular beliefs or systems of ethics. While I do not disagree with this, I do not subscribe to the contention that they are all of equal worth. For example I wouldn't suggest that my friend, Derek, who subscribes to the view that all ethical/moral decisions should be directed towards cake making (any option that promotes cake making is what he considers ethical, I made it up, sorry) has an opinion of equal worth to that of Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarinism. What grounds do I rest my belief's of worth upon, you ask? I rest them upon how the world actually is. And how the world actually is, is an objective axiom, that is to say, it is without bias.Now, you may state that it is of my own opinion that I use this as an axiom. And you are right. But this is an axiom that most, if not, all ethical positions take. The whole, you cannot derive an ought from an is is non-sensical. As Daniel C Dennett puts it, if you cannot derive an ought from an is, what can you derive it from? [3].My PositionI put forward the notion that there is an objective moral system that we ought to live by, by virtue of being human. Humans have things that ought to, or ought not be. For example, I ought not kick a pregnant woman in the stomach. Why? Well because it minimises health and well-being for the woman. Now, your subjectivist position cannot allow for any scrutiny of such a horrendous action. It's simply somebody else's view of ethics. I ought not kick a pregnant woman because, the way the world actually is, dictates that this should not happen. Suicide also falls into this bracket. The world has in built oughts, I by my nature, ought not be tortured, because to be tortured would minimise health and well-being. Suicide also falls under the category of what ought not be done. Suicide breaks social contracts, and it's an action whose end decreases the health and well-being of a community. I would like to elaborate upon my position more so, however I'm running out of characters and for that I apologise. To summarise, Suicide is an action which is causes unnecessary harm to those around you, it minimises health and well-being, and it breaks social contracts. References - [1] - http://www.allaboutdepression.com... - Risk Factors for Suicide, first paragraph, 3rd sentence[2] - John Stuart Mill (1859). On Liberty. Oxford University. pp. 21–22.[3] - "If 'ought' cannot be derived from 'is', just what can it be derived from? ... ethics must be somehow based on an appreciation of human nature - on a sense of what a human being is or might be and on what a human being might want to have or want to be. If that is naturalism, then naturalism is no fallacy." (Dennett, p. 468)Thank you.