A Brief Essay About Suffering and Suicide

 "A Brief Essay About Suffering and Suicide,” by Maldys Shrubb

 

Is there a measure for how our suffering compares with those around us, and what is the relationship of said struggle to suicide? 

 

    This question begs an understanding of how to define suffering.  Different approaches have been used to understand suffering, and how to mitigate its effects on society.  I will argue how certain philosophers define suffering and insert my own arguments.  Furthermore, I will define the role of science in the remedy of suffering.  This will be an ontological approach, with a practical outcome.  Finally, I will ultimately argue my own solution to remedying suicidal thoughts and actions. 

    One of the most prominent ethos' in the ethical world is Utilitarianism.  This philosophy was popularized and modernized by John Stewart Mill.  J.S. Mill argued that utility is the product of more net good over harm.  However, Mill lacked a proper scale, or agreeable terms set upon the nature of “good” and “harm,” in the context of Utility Ethics.  The best argument to support Mill's arguments for Utilitarianism is based on a consensus of what is harm (or good for that matter.) Various scientific groups studying psychology have at least concluded some means to calculating stress, which is arguably, a form of harm.  As well as doctors attempting to calculate pain.  It is not all on the scientific community alone!   

    When one study's the mind, one cannot simply examine it from the perspective of it as an independent structure.  The environmental or sociological factors need to be taken into account.  This is a joint effort between corresponding fields of study.  Both forms of study need to take their due diligence to collaborate on methods to improve the quality of their research. This would result in a better understanding of how harm functions, and its very nature. Fundamental differences in individual, and group think, may vary greatly.  What does the non-academic know, or should know, to be equipped to prosper in today's world? 

    One other approach to understanding suffering or pain is a duty ethics approach to thought.   The philosopher Immanuel Kant staunchly argued for this line of thinking.  He argued that suffering occurred when one's actions failed to meet with our duty.  Duty, according to Kant, were maxims that held within the bounds of a rule subset.  While his methods were strongly formulaic, they were also flawed.  Deontology might suggest that we suffer for unethical maxims, or that duty was neglected.  This is a rigid system, that unfortunately, merely offers only prescriptive claims.  The greatest value of this system (in regard to suicide) is to place self-preservation as the penultimate maxim within one's duty. 

    Dissecting harm or utility of sociological factors through the lenses of long dead philosophers may have some merit.  However, the information gathered by more modern studies suggest that an ontological based argument is not the desired approach.  Commonplace in society demands that we should assume that harm is relatively congruent, without need for a case-by-case approach.  That said, suicide is considered a very individualistic aim.  If people reacted the same way to suffering: why would some people take their own lives in a crisis and others not?  This is assuming the environmental and psychological factors are the same.  Although, in a complex and diverse society, it is almost irrational to argue that any two individuals are truly facing the same struggles. 

    In the period that I am writing this information down, current society begs individuals not to take their own lives, rather to seek help of some kind.  This usually involves calling a hot line, crisis center, or having mobile crises come to your location.  One must take a deep and reflecting pause to study to what extent these aids individuals.  Removal from a given environment may produce the desired results.  The result is that they wind up in a crisis center or psychiatric hospital.  However, progress isn't without cost, and people may find themselves in a completely new hell of another making.  I argue that this is why people will often avoid using such channels in times of crisis.   

    On a darker line of thinking, I could argue that all suicide prevention information is for one purpose: labor.  Whenever a person dies, it is a removal of a precious recourse to a Machine (or called Leviathan by Hobbes.)  By Machine, I refer to any society, group, or polity, that organizes and assembles persons into a cause.  That cause is typically production and consumption.  People are the necessary fuel that gives the Machine life.  I am making an effort to use the term machine as objectively as possible, and not as a pejorative term.  The fact remains, that counter-suicide programs, were designed to keep the Machine(s) running. 

    That said, the simple answer for reducing suicides, improvement of the quality of life.  This includes quality of food, medicine, security, and even entertainment that a society offers.  One can ask how improvements could be made: at what cost?  I would argue that so much time, energy, effort, and precious resources go to warfare, that it could be converted to a benevolent end.  I also believe that disparities in quality of life, are one of the most foundational causes of suicide.   One's suffering may be magnified by studying the vastly superior quality of life of those around them.  Furthermore, with no discernible strategy or ends to achieve that lifestyle, a vast quantity of suffering may ensue.  The pursuit of cooperation and improvement of all ways of life should be the desired end.