Is it selfish to commit suicide?

[Akasuki]

Do you think it's selfish to commit suicide?
Why or why not?

If you think it isn't, do you think it's okay to kill someone who wants to die?

I personally think it is selfish because you take your pain and give it to others after you commit suicide. Not that I'm against anyone who wants to do it though because I know from experience that sometimes you don't even think of it, but it's just my personal opinion.

[FreeFall]

I don't think it's selfish.

It's not my life nor my place to demand that they live just because it'll spare me the grief of their death and circumstance.
People hold their own fate, if they want to die they've every right to decide so. We've the right to decide how we live, we've the right to "quit" how we please.

[LoveMe_HateMe]

Do you think it's selfish to commit suicide?
Why or why not?

If you think it isn't, do you think it's okay to kill someone who wants to die?

I personally think it is selfish because you take your pain and give it to others after you commit suicide. Not that I'm against anyone who wants to do it though because I know from experience that sometimes you don't even think of it, but it's just my personal opinion.

No I don't, at the end of the day, they must be feeling pretty damn low if they are considering it, let alone going through with it.

You say you think it's selfish because the pain gets "spread" to other people, but what about the suicidal person? What about the pain that they are feeling, thats been cause by the people around them?

At the end if the day, everyone dies, why should we not have a say in when and how?

Dont get me wrong, in a perfect world there would be no such thing as depression, suicide, 3rd world hunger etc. But there is, and the only way some people feel that they can get away from their depression, bullying etc is through suicide - and even then generally it is a last resort after failing to get help. I know this isn't always the case.

My point is that it isn't selfish, generally it's a last resort.

[PurpleReign]

In my mind, someone who kills themselves is sick, and not a rational thinker. On that basis, it is not selfish (Although it may appear that way on the surface), because something is wrong in their brains that is making them irrational. I.e. it's not really "them" making that decision.

[Yonkers]

I definitely would say that it's not selfish, as FreeFall previously said, it's their choice how the "quit" although I wouldn't put it in those terms as quit makes it sound more like a "coward's way out" which in a lot of cases it isn't.

[Jackerlus]

I'm on the fence here. When you kill yourself, you might be giving other people sadness or remorse without thinking about it, but also if you are suicidal you may feel that you have nothing left and after all, it's your life. But is no life better than a life?

[FreeFall]

I definitely would say that it's not selfish, as FreeFall previously said, it's their choice how the "quit" although I wouldn't put it in those terms as quit makes it sound more like a "coward's way out" which in a lot of cases it isn't.

I agree. I picked a very poor choice of words. I don't think all suicides are cowards way out, I hate though that that's how I made it sound. Sometimes it's a high form of manipulation, the ultimate kind. I do agree with the poster who said something about their brains, I'm on my phone bored at work so I can't check, sorry. I think it takes as much courage to one day decide to end the pain, as it does to face it until it gets better or they get numb. I'm not saying they're heroes, frankly I think those buddishts that burned themselves alive are the only suicide heroes, but that must take a lot of strength to muster.

[MisterSix]

Is it selfish to force someone to live when they don't want to?

[Noxail]

I don't think it's selfish. I think it's a way of telling the world how much fucking pain your in. Being someone who has eleven attempts on her record, I can't say much, but if I where to one day kill myself, I wouldn't want anyone to think of how cowardly it was of me to die, I'd want people the think of how brave I was to let go. Then again, I'm not brave in the least. :rolleyes: ~holli

[Syvelocin]

Coming from a time I was suicidal myself, I'm really torn on what to say. I mean, suicide is NOT correct under ANY circumstances. I hate when people are so unhappy with their lives that they want to give it up, because they throw away a lot when they do. They can't see that none of this lasts. It always gets better, or at least you can actively do things to make your life better. Suicide is not an action done in rational thinking. While I cringe when someone calls them "sick," it just isn't rational though. I understand what it's like to feel like there is no light at the end of the tunnel, but you have to keep going until you see there really is one, there always is one. it took me four years of wallowing in my depression to figure it out, and I'm so glad I did.

A life is always better than no life. You only get one, might as well experience it.

I can't seriously call someone who commits suicide selfish, but you know how hard it is to see your best friend, your child, your family member so unhappy that they don't want to live? Parents can be living with those what-ifs for the rest of their lives, some think it was all their fault. If only I spent more time with him. If only I noticed sooner and got him help. It's horrible pain that doesn't have to be suffered if only the person could have seen there's always other options. I can't even imagine doing that to my mum. I'd suffer a hundred lifetimes before hurting her.

[Hypers]

I don't think it is selfish. Although it might give his or her family/friends some bad days, he or her must have already been through lots of emotional moments that might be harder.

[SmexiLexie510]

I do not believe it is selfish at all. I think it is their choice if they want to take their life. They must be feeling pretty terrible to consider doing it, let alone actually do it. So it's not like they're doing to to spite other people, which is where the term 'selfish' generally comes into play. I do not condone or encourage it, but at the end of the day it is their choice, even if it is the wrong one.

[TheBigUnit]

Do you think it's selfish to commit suicide?

to a degree yes



Why or why not?

you have no right what so ever to kill yourself basically unless those special cases like ur in so much pain etc



I personally think it is selfish because you take your pain and give it to others after you commit suicide. Not that I'm against anyone who wants to do it though because I know from experience that sometimes you don't even think of it, but it's just my personal opinion.

i 100% agree

[Human]

I don't think it's selfish, it's your life and to be honest once you're done with it it doesn't matter any more. People might not know your situation and why you committed suicide

[Φρανκομβριτ]

Is it selfish to force someone to live when they don't want to?

You hit the nail on the head

It may be selfish because one is doing something purely based on their prefferences, however I'd say it's no more selfish than staying alive because others can't handle the loss of said person.

I shan't say anymore on the subject or I may get in to trouble

[Antisthenes]

I do not believe it is selfish at all. I think it is their choice if they want to take their life.

There is a bit of contradiction in what you say.

You say you don't believe it's at all selfish, but then you go on to list details that emphasize it as being exactly that. An act that a person, P, undertakes by their own choice that they want to take their own life is in no way anything except a selfish act. Care to reconcile this?

[randomnessqueen]

i dont see why it would be selfish
but its certainly a poor decision
killing just isnt a good thing in general

[Lyra Heartstrings]

In my mind, someone who kills themselves is sick, and not a rational thinker. On that basis, it is not selfish (Although it may appear that way on the surface), because something is wrong in their brains that is making them irrational. I.e. it's not really "them" making that decision.

Sick? Alright, that's bad wording. I'm sorry that I'm just a bit tired of life. I'm not "sick".
~
I don't think it is. Those people have no idea how we feel. If we are to the point of suicide, and they can't stop us, they shouldn't make us feel bad for it.

[Sudds3]

I do think that it's a very selfish thing to do. The person is only thinking about themselves, say they kill themselves over a financial problem. Then the debt that they are in is just pushed onto the wife and kids supposing they had them. It's only taking care of your problems and pushing them onto other people. If its because they think life sucks and everyone is being shitty to them, it's still selfish. They don't think about the other people who could feel the same way, they don't think about trying to fix the problem, they don't think about how the people who love them will feel, it's only to take the easy way out and push your burdens onto other people.

I've felt what it's like to want to commit suicide, I've even tried to before. I would very much enjoy for someone to politely respond with their feelings if they feel I am wrong. I'm open to new consideration, but this is how I feel right now.

[SmexiLexie510]

There is a bit of contradiction in what you say.

You say you don't believe it's at all selfish, but then you go on to list details that emphasize it as being exactly that. An act that a person, P, undertakes by their own choice that they want to take their own life is in no way anything except a selfish act. Care to reconcile this?

Just because it is their choice to do something, doesn't mean it's a selfish act. If they want to do it then it is their choice. That does not, in my eyes, put any emphasis whatsoever on it being selfish.

[FreeFall]

If its because they think life sucks and everyone is being shitty to them, it's still selfish. They don't think about the other people who could feel the same way, they don't think about trying to fix the problem, they don't think about how the people who love them will feel, it's only to take the easy way out and push your burdens onto other people.
I'm curious, why do you feel a person so unhappy and checked out of life, has such an obligation to people just because of feelings? Why should they think of those other people? Why should they live because it'll make other people happy when they themselves are teetering on the cliff so to speak?
I'm not advocating unhappy people kill themselves, just feel like what you've said is a ball and chain on people.

[Sudds3]

It's not to live to make other people happy, you do have an obligation to take care of your family. And killing yourself is doing to worst possible thing to your family. I didn't intend for it to sound like you should make your life about other people, but you should live your life the way you want to, but put other people first. If we all just think about ourselves then nothing would get accomplished and the world would suck.

It sounds terrible to say that people who commit suicide are being selfish, but that's what I think. There are ways of help, a lot are very u affective, but some can help. Like waiting. I was in a bad state of mind for about 4 months, but I held out thinking of my mom and how she would feel if I did, so obviously I wasn't too close to the edge because I could still think straight in that one sense.

Also people who are suicidal are very confused and emotional, so they can't think straight. What they do is going to be based on them, it comes with depression I guess. Feeling terrible and just thinking of ways to end it. But I do think that a person who does commit suicide wouldn't possibly be able to think about if it'll be bad for others (I should have said that in my first post) because my friends dad took his own life over financial problems, the house was going to be foreclosed the next day so he killed himself in the backyard. It was a terrible thing to do, but with help from my church they got to keep the house!

If I missed anything, well, you know what to do

[squibles976]

Yes it tells everyone you knew they weren't worth it

[thetechguy2]

No, I Disagree, and I think if someone is in pain, and they decide to end their life, then they will suffer no more, and it is that persons choice

[Antisthenes]

Just because it is their choice to do something, doesn't mean it's a selfish act. If they want to do it then it is their choice. That does not, in my eyes, put any emphasis whatsoever on it being selfish.

You conveniently ignored the other two parts that I highlighted, being the relevant information to making it a selfish choice. Of course an arbitrarily selected choice is an arbitrarily selected choice. That was not the point of the statement. The part that makes it selfish is that it's what they want and it's a choice concerning their own life and no other life.

Keep your eye on all of what was said, not just a single piece of the whole:

I think it is their choice if they want to take their life.

There is a bit of contradiction in what you say.

You say you don't believe it's at all selfish, but then you go on to list details that emphasize it as being exactly that. An act that a person, P, undertakes by their own choice that they want to take their own life is in no way anything except a selfish act. Care to reconcile this?

Notice how I wrote not just of it being their own choice, but their choice being based on only what they themselves want with their own life, being the definition of a selfish choice. Not to say a selfish choice is a bad thing, but based only on what you said, that's precisely what this choice of suicide is.

their choice to do something, &
If they want to do it then it is their choice.
& All the rest of what I commented on of yours that you ignored in your response: they want to take their life.

Does, by definition, end up as a selfish choice. The sophistry of ignoring the rest of what I had said - not withstanding.

[Bath]

In general, no, I don't think suicide is selfish. I also think anybody who tells somebody suicidal that it is, is doing the wrong thing.

[Pierce]

I honestly think that if youre gonna commit suicide your not gonan care about others. If i was going to kill mself why would i care about life after em it doesn't matter nothng matters. Everythng will be over after im dead. Once im gone the world will not go on as far as i know. cause im dead =p hope that made sense

[Φρανκομβριτ]

Yes it tells everyone you knew they weren't worth it

Whoa now, those are harsh words. It's saying you can't handle it anymore. It's up to each of us to interpret what it means. It's selfish to expect someone to stay around to appease you.

[Thepolice5291]

Yes, There are ways of finding help, Only the strong find help, And If You do commit suicide you shouldn't be advertised as a good thing e.g. Amanda Todd (Was basically a slut, and a bully according to a few sources) Killed herself --> suddenly a hero and role model to some even though she didn't find a way to fix her problem

I would look up to someone who was depressed and was thinking of suicide BUT didn't commit suicide and found a way to fix her/his problem

[LoveMe_HateMe]

I do think that it's a very selfish thing to do. The person is only thinking about themselves, say they kill themselves over a financial problem. Then the debt that they are in is just pushed onto the wife and kids supposing they had them. It's only taking care of your problems and pushing them onto other people. If its because they think life sucks and everyone is being shitty to them, it's still selfish. They don't think about the other people who could feel the same way, they don't think about trying to fix the problem, they don't think about how the people who love them will feel, it's only to take the easy way out and push your burdens onto other people.

I've felt what it's like to want to commit suicide, I've even tried to before. I would very much enjoy for someone to politely respond with their feelings if they feel I am wrong. I'm open to new consideration, but this is how I feel right now.

Firstly, every persons situation is different, you can't judge them for committing suicide. The could be the most selfless person in the world and still commit suicide.

Yes, There are ways of finding help, Only the strong find help, And If You do commit suicide you shouldn't be advertised as a good thing e.g. Amanda Todd (Was basically a slut, and a bully according to a few sources) Killed herself --> suddenly a hero and role model to some even though she didn't find a way to fix her problem

I would look up to someone who was depressed and was thinking of suicide BUT didn't commit suicide and found a way to fix her/his problem

Totally agree with this!

But not going to get started on herand what I think of the situation...

It's not to live to make other people happy, you do have an obligation to take care of your family. And killing yourself is doing to worst possible thing to your family. I didn't intend for it to sound like you should make your life about other people, but you should live your life the way you want to, but put other people first. If we all just think about ourselves then nothing would get accomplished and the world would suck.

It sounds terrible to say that people who commit suicide are being selfish, but that's what I think. There are ways of help, a lot are very u affective, but some can help. Like waiting. I was in a bad state of mind for about 4 months, but I held out thinking of my mom and how she would feel if I did, so obviously I wasn't too close to the edge because I could still think straight in that one sense.

Also people who are suicidal are very confused and emotional, so they can't think straight. What they do is going to be based on them, it comes with depression I guess. Feeling terrible and just thinking of ways to end it. But I do think that a person who does commit suicide wouldn't possibly be able to think about if it'll be bad for others (I should have said that in my first post) because my friends dad took his own life over financial problems, the house was going to be foreclosed the next day so he killed himself in the backyard. It was a terrible thing to do, but with help from my church they got to keep the house!

If I missed anything, well, you know what to do

I'm the kind of person to always put other people first. Always. It's how I've been brought up. Am I suicidal? Yes. I don't consider myself selfish. Reason why I'm still here? Two reasons... but I'm. Other going to into them. People see self harm as selfish - if that is the case, that is the only selfish thing I do.

So, my point - if a person who always puts others first commits suicide, how can they be selfish?

To get the help that someone may need takes strength and courage and support - if someone is always putting others first, they wont stop and think about themselves, and they'll just end up going downhill, not wanting to ask for help as they may believe it is selfish to ask for help.

[JollyBarton]

To get the help that someone may need takes strength and courage and support - if someone is always putting others first, they wont stop and think about themselves, and they'll just end up going downhill, not wanting to ask for help as they may believe it is selfish to ask for help.

This was the point that I was going to bring up. No one else seemed to mention anything like this. Imagine if the person was suicidal because of crap going on in their life, and self-hatred, and the like. Imagine that they want to kill themselves because they think that everyone else would be better off without them. Imagine that they know it will cause those that say they love them pain but life will go on and those people will recover. They want to die so that they stop hurting others and ruining others lives. That's a selfless suicide.

It all depends on the situation. It isn't a constant. Grey area. Not just Black and White

[OldSchool]

It's very selfish since it hurts those who care.

[LoveMe_HateMe]

It all depends on the situation. It isn't a constant. Grey area. Not just Black and White

This just sums up the whole argument in my books. It's a grey area.

[Twilly F. Sniper]

No. It happens because of the opposite reason. They arent selfish.

[Sudds3]

Firstly, every persons situation is different, you can't judge them for committing suicide. The could be the most selfless person in the world and still commit suicide.

They could be, but committing suicide is selfish...no matter how good they are. It's like a little kid who hasn't do e anything bad in their life, then they steal a chocolate bar...does that automatically make them immune from punishment because they havnt done anything? I'm saying that committing suicide is a selfish act, not that the people who do it are selfish. People who do take their own lives aren't thinking straight, so we can't really judge them for being more than just a person who was pushed too far, nuff said.

[Antisthenes]

It all depends on the situation. It isn't a constant. Grey area. Not just Black and White

If you could do me the service,

Explain to me how: If something depends on the situation, then it is in a 'grey area'.

Or even for that matter, how does (it depending on the situation) entail that (it isn't constant)?

[OldSchool]

This issue, like many others, constitutes mostly of grey areas. Though there are definite yeses and noes.
Although suicide generally is a no-no

[Antisthenes]

This issue, like many others, constitutes mostly of grey areas. Though there are definite yeses and noes.
Although suicide generally is a no-no

Explain these grey areas and how this constitutes it.

[OldSchool]

Explain these grey areas and how this constitutes it.

Could be someone like hitler who slaughtered millions which would be doing most of the world a favor yet making a very few unhappy. (people who only have a career because of him)
or it could be a figure like mother teresa (didn't commit suicide) which would make most people unhappy yet a few very happy because they greedily want her position.
Or it could be a regular guy with friends and enemies who'd be in the middle.

[Avenged]

I think, in a sad way, people consider it selfish because they're looking at it in a selfish aspect within itself. They're calling it selfish because they say 'look at all the people he/she left behind!' but if they cared enough... the suicidal person wouldn't have done it.

Suicide is an escape, to those who are doing it. They had something to escape from, obviously, and it's their life, their choice. I dislike hearing about suicide because personally, i couldn't take my own life, but I don't call those who do it "selfish," i call those who call it "Selfish," well... Selfish

[Antisthenes]

Could be someone like hitler who slaughtered millions which would be doing most of the world a favor yet making a very few unhappy. (people who only have a career because of him)
or it could be a figure like mother teresa (didn't commit suicide) which would make most people unhappy yet a few very happy because they greedily want her position.
Or it could be a regular guy with friends and enemies who'd be in the middle.

To the Hitler example:

This is not a case of grey area. What you described is as such:

1. Hitler slaughtered millions.
2. Due to the above: (Some people are happy.)
3. Due to the above: (Some people are not happy.)

This is very cut and dry. There is no grey area here. Some people are happy, some are not. What's grey about this? It's entirely black and white. We can symbolize this in logic as follows:

h = Hitler
Mx = x slaughtered millions.
Hx = x is happy.
Px = x is a person. (Person being an individual case of people)

1. Mh
(Hitler slaughter millions.)
2. Mh → ∃x(Px ∧ Hx)
(Due to the above, some people are happy.)
3. Mh → ∃x(Px ∧ ~Hx)
(Due to the above, some people are not happy.)

Basic predicate logic shows us that there is absolutely no grey area here. All of what you said in the first example is very clear, black and white, and cut and dry. Now onto the second example.

___________________

To the mother Teresa example:

1. Mother Teresa commits suicide.
2. Due to the above: Some people are happy.
3. Due to the above: Some people are not happy.

t = Mother Teresa
Sx = x commits suicide.
Hx = x is happy.
Px = x is a person. (Person being an individual case of people)

1. St
2. St → ∃x(Px ∧ Hx)
3. St → ∃x(Px ∧ ~Hx)

Again, basic predicate logic can be no clearer. There is absolutely no grey area in the above statements. No grey area is found here, just like with the Hitler example. Now onto the third example.

___________________

r = A regular guy
Fx = x has friends.
Ex = x has enemies.
Mx = x is in the middle.

1. A regular guy has friends.
2. A regular guy has enemies.
3. Due to the above: A regular guy is in the middle.

1. Fr
2. Er
3. (Fr ∧ Er) → Mr

Yet again, you've provided an entirely unambiguous idea. There is, yet again, by logical proof, no grey area to be found in this third and final example.

For any question you might have about the above proofs, feel free to ask.
_____________________

Now, even if one or all of these were examples of grey area, (which they are not) then you still failed to show that the suicide case is an example of grey area.

So even if I did not just prove that each one of these contained no grey area, you're still left with an empty shopping bag as far as grey area goes with regards to the suicide being selfish or not.

[OldSchool]

To the Hitler example:

This is not a case of grey area. What you described is as such:

1. Hitler slaughtered millions.
2. Due to the above: (Some people are happy.)
3. Due to the above: (Some people are not happy.)

This is very cut and dry. There is no grey area here. Some people are happy, some are not. What's grey about this? It's entirely black and white. We can symbolize this in logic as follows:

h = Hitler
Mx = x slaughtered millions.
Hx = x is happy.
Px = x is a person. (Person being an individual case of people)

1. Mh
(Hitler slaughter millions.)
2. Mh → ∃x(Px ∧ Hx)
(Due to the above, some people are happy.)
3. Mh → ∃x(Px ∧ ~Hx)
(Due to the above, some people are not happy.)

Basic predicate logic shows us that there is absolutely no grey area here. All of what you said in the first example is very clear, black and white, and cut and dry. Now onto the second example.

___________________

To the mother Teresa example:

1. Mother Teresa commits suicide.
2. Due to the above: Some people are happy.
3. Due to the above: Some people are not happy.

t = Mother Teresa
Sx = x commits suicide.
Hx = x is happy.
Px = x is a person. (Person being an individual case of people)

1. St
2. St → ∃x(Px ∧ Hx)
3. St → ∃x(Px ∧ ~Hx)

Again, basic predicate logic can be no clearer. There is absolutely no grey area in the above statements. No grey area is found here, just like with the Hitler example. Now onto the third example.

___________________

r = A regular guy
Fx = x has friends.
Ex = x has enemies.
Mx = x is in the middle.

1. A regular guy has friends.
2. A regular guy has enemies.
3. Due to the above: A regular guy is in the middle.

1. Fr
2. Er
3. (Fr ∧ Er) → Mr

Yet again, you've provided an entirely unambiguous idea. There is, yet again, by logical proof, no grey area to be found in this third and final example.

For any question you might have about the above proofs, feel free to ask.
_____________________

Now, even if one or all of these were examples of grey area, (which they are not) then you still failed to show that the suicide case is an example of grey area.

So even if I did not just prove that each one of these contained no grey area, you're still left with an empty shopping bag as far as grey area goes with regards to the suicide being selfish or not.
White=sad someone died
Black=happy someone died.

Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels were crying like babies when hitler died because they knew they were absolutely screwed.
These few examples of white (despite their moral alignment) pollute the overall happiness of the millions who wanted him dead. Because only pure black is black, and not black with a hint of white, it can be said that there is no grey in this scenario, perhaps in any scenario. Not even the death of god, if there is one, would bring white or black for there would be both people happy to hear of his death and people who are sad.
Nonetheless, if an equal number of people were sad the regular person died (white) and were happy the regular person died (black) this would form a medium shade of grey.
I change my theory: My theory is now everything related to this is a shade of grey.

[Antisthenes]

White=sad someone died
Black=happy someone died.

Himmler and Goering were crying like babies when hitler died because they knew they were absolutely screwed.
These few examples of white (despite their moral alignment) pollute theoverall happiness of the millions who wanted him dead. Because only pure black is black, and not black with a hint of white, it can be said that there is no grey in this scenario, perhaps in any scenario. Not even the death of god, if there is one, would bring white or black for there would be both people happy to hear of his death and people who are sad.
Nonetheless, if an equal number of people were sad the regular person died (white) and were happy the regular person died (black) this would form a medium shade of grey.
I change my theory: My theory is now everything related to this is a shade of grey.

Still not grey area. Here we can see it the same exact way as presented above, only in simpler terms:

White=sad someone died
Black=happy someone died.

1. An individual case is: (White).
2. An individual case is: (Black).
3. An individual case is (White) and an individual case is (Black).

Take note of the fact that line 3 is not logically equivalent to:
An individual case is (White) and (Black).

So thus, it's not a grey area, as seen again. It's white in one case and black in the other.

Even making them into a conjunction (joining them together as an individual assertion) does not get us logically to grey (a mixture of white and black) it only gets us to one case being white, and another one being black in conjunction.

A cube is white.
Another cube is black.
Therefore, one cube is both white and black.

Invalid logic. The same applies to the above only with white and black in your original examples being attributed to two different cases of people feeling: (happy)/(not happy), as well as now with white being sad someone died and black being happy someone died. Logic just doesn't get us to grey area, here.

[OldSchool]

Still not grey area. Here we can see it the same exact way as presented above, only in simpler terms:

White=sad someone died
Black=happy someone died.

1. An individual case is: (White).
2. An individual case is: (Black).
3. An individual case is (White) and an individual case is (Black).

Take note of the fact that line 3 is not logically equivalent to:
An individual case is (White) and (Black).

So thus, it's not a grey area, as seen again. It's white in one case and black in the other.

Even making them into a conjunction (joining them together as an individual assertion) does not get us logically to grey (a mixture of white and black) it only gets us to one case being white, and another one being black in conjunction.

A cube is white.
Another cube is black.
Therefore, one cube is both white and black.

Invalid logic. The same applies to the above only with white and black in your original examples being attributed to two different cases of people feeling: (happy)/(not happy), as well as now with white being sad someone died and black being happy someone died. Logic just doesn't get us to grey area, here.

so the opinion of one overpowers the opinion of all? A person does not live isolated from everyone else. In this situation all opinions are accounted for. Unless of course you believe in Fascism. This is the line of thought that led to millions of deaths.
Mixing of opinions is the law of averages. ALSO a person may be both happy and sad a person has died. He may have loved the person yet hated everything they did.

[Antisthenes]

so the opinion of one overpowers the opinion of all? A person does not live isolated from everyone else. In this situation all opinions are accounted for. Unless of course you believe in Fascism. This is the line of thought that led to millions of deaths.
Mixing of opinions is the law of averages. ALSO a person may be both happy and sad a person has died. He may have loved the person yet hated everything they did.

I'm confused about how you got from what I said to:

"so the opinion of one overpowers the opinion of all?"

I didn't say this. I only said that, EVEN IF we consider ALL opinions at once, there is still no grey area being had here.
There's (white) in some cases and (black) in others, and the conjunction of both of those cases does not lead us to a grey area, but instead leads to only:
(There's (white) in some cases and (black) in others.)

Can't go further than that, and so we can't get to saying there is grey area here.

Also as an edit:

ALSO a person may be both happy and sad a person has died. He may have loved the person yet hated everything they did.

Not quite. In the example you gave, the person is not both happy and sad at the same time in the same respect. In one case, for one respect he's happy. In another case, for a different respect, he's sad.

This does not get us to:
He is both sad and happy.
It only gets us to:
He is sad in one case and he is happy in another.

Here's an example with the same exact logical structure as you present here, to demonstrate the invalidity:

1. In one case, a doctor is a male.
2. In another case, a doctor is a female.
3. Therefore, a doctor is both a male and a female.

See how the logic doesn't work? Now let's look at your example of happy and sad and see why it follows the same structure.

1. In one case, man is happy.
2. In another case, a man is sad.
3. Therefore, a man is happy and sad.

Same logical form, and invalid for the same reason.

[OldSchool]

I'm confused about how you got from what I said to:

"so the opinion of one overpowers the opinion of all?"

I didn't say this. I only said that, EVEN IF we consider ALL opinions at once, there is still no grey area being had here.
There's (white) in some cases and (black) in others, and the conjunction of both of those cases does not lead us to a grey area, but instead leads to only:
(There's (white) in some cases and (black) in others.)

Can't go further than that, and so we can't get to saying there is grey area here.

I just explained that even if opinions don't mix, I said people can be either neutral or both happy and sad.
So if I grabbed a black pen and a white pen they'd either turn out black or white?

[Antisthenes]

I just explained that even if opinions don't mix, I said people can be either neutral or both happy and sad.
So if I grabbed a black pen and a white pen they'd either turn out black or white?

See the edit I gave to my post above. People can't be both happy and sad at the same time in the same respect, because to be sad excludes the possibility of being happy. You can however be happy in one respect and time, and then sad in another respect and time, and there's no problem there.

"If I grabbed a black pen and a white pen they'd either turn out black or white?"

No. One pen is black, the other is white. So in conjunction you have: A black pen and a white pen.
You do not have: A black and a white pen.

Critical difference there.

[OldSchool]

See the edit I gave to my post above. People can't be both happy and sad at the same time in the same respect, because to be sad excludes the possibility of being happy. You can however be happy in one respect and time, and then sad in another respect and time, and there's no problem there.

What if the doctor is a hermaphrodite? Same thing can be applied to feelings. Look at mixed feelings.

[Antisthenes]

What if the doctor is a hermaphrodite? Same thing can be applied to feelings. Look at mixed feelings.

In such a case, the logic is still invalid, because you're trying to go from two individual cases to one case that holds both.

Like with the following example:

1. Some people are alive.
2. Some people are dead.
3. Therefore, some people are both dead and alive.

Can't get to the conclusion on #3 from (#1 and #2).

You can, though, get to:

Some people are alive and some people are dead.

Furthermore, to the mixed feelings piece:

1. In one case I feel happy.
2. In another case I feel sad.
____
This does not mean that in the SAME case I feel both happy and sad.

[OldSchool]

In such a case, the logic is still invalid, because you're trying to go from two individual cases to one case that holds both.

Like with the following example:

1. Some people are alive.
2. Some people are dead.
3. Therefore, some people are both dead and alive.

Can't get to the conclusion on #3 from (#1 and #2).

You can, though, get to:

Some people are alive and some people are dead.

Furthermore, to the mixed feelings:

1. In one case I feel happy.
2. In another case I feel sad.
____
This does not mean that in the SAME case I feel both happy and sad.

What defines death? What defines life? Is the soulless existence of the 21st century life?
This is devolving into philosophy rather than useful points.

[Antisthenes]

What defines death? What defines life? Is the soulless existence of the 21st century life?
This is devolving into philosophy rather than useful points.

It is entirely irrelevant as to what death and life are. You still can't make the connection. I'll make it abstract to show you:

1. Some X are Y.
2. Some X are Z.
3. Therefore, some X are (Y & Z).

Invalid logic. Regardless of what Y, X, and Z are, it's still invalid logic.

1. Some dogs have fur.
2. Some dogs do not have fur.
3. Therefore, some dogs both (have fur and don't have fur).

See the problem clearer now?

If not, this one should solidify it:

1. Some shapes are squares.
2. Some shapes are circles.
3. Therefore, some shapes are both (squares and circles).

See the issue?

[OldSchool]

It is entirely irrelevant as to what death and life are. You still can't make the connection. I'll make it abstract to show you:

1. Some X are Y.
2. Some X are Z.
3. Therefore, some X are (Y & Z).

Invalid logic. Regardless of what Y, X, and Z are, it's still invalid logic.

1. Some dogs have fur.
2. Some dogs do not have fur.
3. Therefore, some dogs both (have fur and don't have fur).

See the problem clearer now?

X time Y =XY.

[Antisthenes]

X time Y =XY.

What do you mean by this? Arithmetic multiplication?

Such as X * Y = XY?

Edit: It appears as though you just got banned for some reason. I'll wait until your return; if you do get back, that is.

Consider the shapes argument I provided in the post prior to your last one. It should clarify the logic issue if you haven't seen it yet.

[philosophizing]

Humans are selfish, always, it's in our nature. Every move me make and every decision we take are for, ultimately, selfish reasons. I.e. yes.

[Antisthenes]

Humans are selfish, always, it's in our nature. Every move me make and every decision we take are for, ultimately, selfish reasons. I.e. yes.

Harriet Tubman taking African American slaves through the underground railroad in order to save their lives at the risk of becoming a slave again herself, never to see these same slaves again for any gratitude or returned favors.

How does this piece fit into your
"every decision we take are for, ultimately, selfish reasons."?

[LoveMe_HateMe]

Harriet Tubman taking African American slaves through the underground railroad in order to save their lives at the risk of becoming a slave again herself, never to see these same slaves again for any gratitude or returned favors.

How does this piece fit into your
"every decision we take are for, ultimately, selfish reasons."?

Dude's got a point...

[ArsenicCatNip]

I would say yes it is selfish. If a person who committed suicide was raising a family or a single parent then I would have to say the person is selfish. The person doesn't consider the consequences of how their family and friends are effected by it and I believe that is selfishness. The lack of consideration for others, and how they feel.

[Syvelocin]

Harriet Tubman taking African American slaves through the underground railroad in order to save their lives at the risk of becoming a slave again herself, never to see these same slaves again for any gratitude or returned favors.

How does this piece fit into your
"every decision we take are for, ultimately, selfish reasons."?

Not that I think selfless acts are selfish, but I just want to point out probably 99% of the scenarios, there's something the person is getting out of it.

Even selfless acts cause gratification for being selfless. I hate to say it, but I've never done anything for someone unless it made me happy to do something for them. Even if it's picking up something a stranger dropped. You do nice things for people so you can be nice. You like being nice. Name any charitable historical figure, they inevitably got some sort of satisfaction from their deeds, and that's why they did it. Doctors, mission workers, fire men, volunteers. Heck, even me, I want to be a mental health counselor, I want to help people because that makes me happy.

[Charles Finley]

Suicide isn't selfish. However, it is certainly a cowardly act.

[LoveMe_HateMe]

Suicide isn't selfish. However, it is certainly a cowardly act.

It is not a cowardly act.

[Antisthenes]

Not that I think selfless acts are selfish, but I just want to point out probably 99% of the scenarios, there's something the person is getting out of it.

Even selfless acts cause gratification for being selfless. I hate to say it, but I've never done anything for someone unless it made me happy to do something for them. Even if it's picking up something a stranger dropped. You do nice things for people so you can be nice. You like being nice. Name any charitable historical figure, they inevitably got some sort of satisfaction from their deeds, and that's why they did it. Doctors, mission workers, fire men, volunteers. Heck, even me, I want to be a mental health counselor, I want to help people because that makes me happy.

You first say, probably 99% of the scenarios but then you go on and only cite your own, individual scenarios. The point here being, your actions aren't a large enough sample of all scenarios to lead us to the conclusion that it is even probably true that 99% of scenarios are such a way.
This would be a massive generalization from your own actions to all actions ever taken, which is absurd.

It'd be a generalization akin to going to the edge of the ocean's beach with an empty cup, scooping up a bit of ocean water into the cup, examining the now full cup, and then concluding, "Well, looks like there are no fish in the ocean." The sample provided simply is not good enough. The same is the case for the generalization you provided. The inductive argument here is terribly weak.

Furthermore, you say, Even selfless acts cause gratification for being selfless.

By what you gave above, of your own examples of the situations, the selflessness isn't necessarily the cause (nor are the acts even actually selfless in the case of the goal being gratification, but we'll get to that later) of the feeling you experience afterwards. All you showed in that regard is that the feeling afterwards is correlated to the selflessness. It is not demonstrable from the examples you provided that the selflessness is antecedent, or a causal antecedent to the feeling that you get afterwards. It's only demonstrable that there is a correlation between the two.

The point being is that, correlation is not the same as causation. To say that it is, is fallacious reasoning.

Consider the following situation to see why correlation is not causation:

Say that I wear the same shoes for two years as I walk from place to place. I never step in gum at any point while wearing these shoes.

I buy a new pair of shoes.

The very first day that I begin walking from place to place upon wearing my new shoes, I step in gum.

This does not in any way mean that my stepping in gum was caused by my wearing the new shoes. Only that my stepping in gum was correlated to my wearing the new shoes.

The same is the case for the above claim regarding the feeling you get afterwards and the alleged 'selfless acts'
(Which aren't even selfless to begin with, considering you said "I've never done anything for someone unless it made me happy to do something for them." This immediately tells us that those acts are not selfless, but instead are selfish acts that masquerade as selfless ones.)

As Aristotle once said,
They appear to refute because men lack the power
to keep their eyes at once upon what is the same and what is different. -From the work, "On Sophistical Refutations"

Keep your eyes on the crucial difference between a selfless act and a selfish act, and do not be fooled by selfish acts that appear to be selfless, or for that matter, selfless ones that appear to be selfish.

Furthermore, even if any of those acts were actually selfless, we'd need to be shown that it is not simply a correlation, but is a necessary causation, which has not been done yet. Moreover, we'd need to show that the causation (which has not been shown) is also the entire reason as to why the acts were committed in the first place. Not only all of that, but we'd also need to demonstrate that the alleged 'selfless acts' that have selfish intentions are not merely ostensibly selfless, as the examples you gave up above. Which, I'd have to say, trying to show that an act that has (entirely selfish intentions) is in fact, not selfish, but instead is a selfless act, would seem to be an impossible feat.