suicides in novels

The flip side of the suicide hypothetical about world hunger is, "Would you murder an innocent person if it would abolish world hunger for all time?" It seems to me that if you wouldn't answer, "Yes" to this question, you shouldn't commit suicide to abolish world hunger, either. Of course to a Christian, the answer is clear. Thou shalt not kill. To the non-religious, the answer appears as if it should be clear as well -- the principle of greatest good for the greatest number would seem to support either the suicide or the murder. But does it? Is death the "evil" that should be prevented at all cost? The Christian (or Muslim) would say that death is a gift from God -- while murder (or suicide) is a sin because it involves willful disobedience. But none of us, religious or atheist, can escape death. If we don't die from hunger, it just means we will die from cancer, or heart disease. And although we cannot escape death, we can, perhaps, avoid murdering others, not because their death by murder is so much worse than their death from any other cause, but because of the moral harm we do to ourselves by murdering someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

The flip side of the suicide hypothetical about world hunger is, "Would you murder an innocent person if it would abolish world hunger for all time?" It seems to me that if you wouldn't answer, "Yes" to this question, you shouldn't commit suicide to abolish world hunger, either.

---

But those are two completely different situations. It's up to you if you feel you are willing to voluntarily give your own life, whereas killing somebody to do it is taking away the 'voluntarily' bit and forcing somebody to do it.

Obviously the situations are different, but they are also similar. In both, the question is would you kill someone in order to save thousands of people? Or, more generally, is it a good, moral act to kill one person to save thousands? If it is a good, moral act, why not murder someone (if it would hypothetically save thousands)? If it is not a good, moral act why commit suicide?

In the case of suicide, the person dying is willingly dying.
In the case of murder, the person dying is NOT willingly dying.

That's true, of course. But why is that the only relevant factor? The principle of "greatest good for the greatest number" would suggest that both the murder and the suicide were moral acts. And, of course, in both cases the moral agent (the hypothetical me) is killing in order to support this principle. (I assume the thousands starving to death aren't "willingly dying" either.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Obviously the situations are different, but they are also similar. In both, the question is would you kill someone in order to save thousands of people? Or, more generally, is it a good, moral act to kill one person to save thousands? If it is a good, moral act, why not murder someone (if it would hypothetically save thousands)? If it is not a good, moral act why commit suicide?

---

no I would not kill for anything because ultimately one advocating killing no matter what the cause is and that is the bottom line.
It is not about morality it is about the message one is sending to others. If one does it then another will.

I go along with Cacian (we knew where you stood on the issue, Cacian). On the other hand, I think all three choices are reasonable: Neither murder nor commit suicide; commit suicide but refrain from murder; or kill both oneself and another person. It's interesting to suss out where the distinctions lie, though. Suppose it wasn't your choice. Suppose your child (OK, the non parents can think of, perhaps, a lover) had the option of committing suicide to prevent starvation? Would you want him to do it? (The starvation option is a little strange, because most of us could prevent starvation by simply living less expensively and giving away our money, but it's a reasonable hypothetical if we ignore that troublesome truth.)

In World War 2, statistics show that Kamikaze attacks were an effective tactic. In other words, the Japanese sank more ships per pilot killed using Kamikaze attacks than they did with traditional bombing. If your country were at war, and it became clear that the same statistics continue to hold, would you advocate Kamikaze attacks? On what principle would you NOT recommend them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I go along with Cacian (we knew where you stood on the issue, Cacian). On the other hand, I think all three choices are reasonable: Neither murder nor commit suicide; commit suicide but refrain from murder; or kill both oneself and another person. It's interesting to suss out where the distinctions lie, though. Suppose it wasn't your choice. Suppose your child (OK, the non parents can think of, perhaps, a lover) had the option of committing suicide to prevent starvation? Would you want him to do it? (The starvation option is a little strange, because most of us could prevent starvation by simply living less expensively and giving away our money, but it's a reasonable hypothetical if we ignore that troublesome truth.)

---

Sorry, but no, it is a silly hypothetical no matter how you cut it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

In World War 2, statistics show that Kamikaze attacks were an effective tactic. In other words, the Japanese sank more ships per pilot killed using Kamikaze attacks than they did with traditional bombing.

---

That doesn't make it an effective tactic unless one has an unlimited supply of planes and an unlimited supply of pilots too stupid to realize their leaders are out of rational tactics. They didn't and they didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

If your country were at war, and it became clear that the same statistics continue to hold, would you advocate Kamikaze attacks? On what principle would you NOT recommend them?

---

On the principle that it is a desperate, dead-end tactic. Both the missile (plane) and the guidance system (pilot) are too expensive to make this sustainable—ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

That doesn't make it an effective tactic unless one has an unlimited supply of planes and an unlimited supply of pilots too stupid to realize their leaders are out of rational tactics. They didn't and they didn't.



On the principle that it is a desperate, dead-end tactic. Both the missile (plane) and the guidance system (pilot) are too expensive to make this sustainable—ever.

---

That's not true. If bombing is an effective tactic (which admits of some doubt, but it's a reasonable hyopthetical), then it is certainly possible (indeed, it appears to have been the case in WW2) that Kamikaze attacks inflict MORE TONNAGE of Ships sunk (the goal of this type of bombing) per plane and pilot lost than conventional bombing. Why would a more efficient tactic in terms of inflicting damage on the enemy, which reduces the losses needed to inflict that damage be "too expensive to be sustainable --ever." This makes no sense.

(I'm not an expert on Kamikaze attacks, but I read an analysis by someone who claimed to be an expert and made this exact case for the WW2 kamikaze attacks. Of course the war was pretty much lost by the time Japan started using this tactic, but if continuing to bomb conventionally cost more casualties in terms of planes and pilots lost per tonnage sunk, why would it be a superior tactic to Kamikaze attacks? You would certainly not need an "unlimited supply of planes..and pilots" using the more efficient tactic any more than you would using the less efficient one. )

eta: Suppose you were a Japanese pilot. The goal of your squadron was to sink X tons of U.S. shipping off Okinowa. There are two options: conventional bombing, or kamikaze attacks. You know that in order to sink X tons using conventional bombing, 30% of your squadron's planes will be shot down and the pilots will be killed. You also know that you can sink the required tonnage using kamikaze attacks, and will stage a lottery to deterimine who will fly the planes. In addition, since Kamikaze attacks are more efficient, the lottery will choose 15 of 100 men for the Kamikaze attacks. So in one case 30 men die, in the other 15 die. Which squadron would you prefer to be a member of?

Could that 30 percent really be pin-pointed? I ask with this thought about your scenario. The 15 pilots assigned the kamikaze attack will be dead with certainty. However, it can't really be determined if 30 actual pilots would die under the alternative, because it's all chance. Where one route is a sure means to death, the others unknown.

However, I don't doubt that the U.S. had a much stronger military. Casualties on the Japanese were bound to be high, so kamikaze attacks probably a last resort tactic. I don't think superior is the right word, because it's really an act out of desperation, not superior intelligence.

It's a general philosophy that's covered in different clothes today. Jihadists wouldn't dream of engaging in a full on ground war, they don't have the man power and resources in a large enough quantity. No, instead they'll send one of their own into "enemy" territory and push the red button. Smart? Maybe, or just desperate and pathetic, especially how little you value the lives of your side. Or maybe my own personal morality is swinging me biased here, but any party willing to go to such lengths for victory must install fear into their own party, and it seems the whole thing would crumble from there.

It's like, "so who's the bad guy: the enemy I'm supposed to kill, or my friends and allies that keep telling me I have to die for their lives and success?".

Like I said, I don't really know if the article I read was correct or not -- but it definitely posited that Kamikazes sank more tonnage of shipping per pilot and plane lost than conventional bombing. Of course you are also correct, Shaman, that the past never predicts the future with 100% accuracy, so when PLANNING tactics, there is some uncertainty. However, after sending hundreds of air squadrons on bombing missions, it's reasonable to trust the statistics.

Nonetheless, I don't think Western airmen would go for Kamikaze attacks. It goes against our ethos, even if it is a more effecient and effective tactic that would save pilots' lives in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Suppose your child (OK, the non parents can think of, perhaps, a lover) had the option of committing suicide to prevent starvation? Would you want him to do it?

---

This is where it becomes hard. I used to believe that suicide was totally fine and was mystified as to why it was so taboo. Then I thought of the family, loved ones and friends of the person who would kill themselves and I began to understand. Suicide is a very selfish act, it scars and traumatizes the loved ones. It's hard for many not to blame themselves when a loved one kills themselves. I can absolutely see that side of the argument.

It also makes the likelihood of that hypothetical much lower in my opinion. Many people would sacrifice themselves for a greater cause if that's where the pain ends but if they started considering family, especially a parent with children, I think it starts to become impossible. As much as you'd be doing good for the whole, you'd be leaving your child without a parent.

All this said, I still think it could be a very strong aspect of a story if done well. The subject would have to be of a character totally opposed to suicide and the gain would have to be massive for it to work, though.

Also, this thread reminds me of the watchmen. It explores this theme of weighing one life against many. Rorsach is murdered for the good of the whole, to prevent global war and for all the right reasons. He isn't a particularly good person and yet it feels very wrong.

All the more satisfying when the news outlet finds his journal at the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grit

Also, this thread reminds me of the watchmen. It explores this theme of weighing one life against many. Rorsach is murdered for the good of the whole, to prevent global war and for all the right reasons. He isn't a particularly good person and yet it feels very wrong.

All the more satisfying when the news outlet finds his journal at the end.

---

Rorschach... not a good person...? What is this blasphemy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Volya

Rorschach... not a good person...? What is this blasphemy...

---

I guess saying he isn't a good person is too simple. Would you want to hang out with him? I sure as hell wouldn't. He's got good intentions, but he's extreme, very violent.

I wouldn't call him a good person.