Is it immoral to harm yourself?

[z3n]

Most people would agree that actions that someone does that harms or possibly harms other people are morally wrong. But what if the action only harms the person doing it? Is it possible that an action is morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking the action? For example, might it be morally wrong to smoke just because it harms the smoker and for no other reason?

[StillSurviving]

No.

[ocmpoma]

Depends.

[Rhinoqulous]

Maybe

[BadFish]

That depends on what your morals are.

[Dux]

Depends on if it really only hurts you. If you for instance decide to take your own life, and leave behind a grieving wife and two kids, then I'd say it would be morally wrong, and selfish. I've had some real lows in my life, when the only thing that kept me from ending it all was the thought of my family suffering. And smoking is, in my opinion, just delayed suicide. But that's my morals.

[z3n]

No.
So your saying that no matter what a person does, if it only harms themselves then it should not be considered immoral?
Mmmm….what about suicide?

Depends.
On what? Or were you just making a joke? :)

That depends on what your morals are.
So are you saying that there are no moral absolutes?

Depends on if it really only hurts you.
Well in the given scenario I stated that it did.

If you for instance decide to take your own life, and leave behind a grieving wife and two kids, then I'd say it would be morally wrong, and selfish.
Mmm…good point. But what if you’re in a lot of incurable physical pain, or what if you don’t have a family. Would it still be immoral then? If it were causing you extreme pain to stay alive wouldn’t it be more selfish for someone to insist that you live?

And smoking is, in my opinion, just delayed suicide. But that's my morals.
Well what about sugar and junk food? Enough of that can give you health problems and kill you too. What about skydiving and bungee jumping? I guess what I’m asking is that if smoking, as a bad activity that can kill you is considered immoral by you, then where do you draw the line. I’m sure someone that smokes might never skydive because they consider it “suicide”.
Personally I find the idea of suicide to be quite detestable. However, like most people I also eat junk food and have gone scuba diving before, so I guess I haven’t really found out where my line is either other then at purposeful suicide.

Here’s an interesting question. Given that suicide is immoral and smoking is not, would it be immoral for somebody to smoke with the intent of killing themselves? In other words, can morals be deemed solely on intent or just on actions?

[solidsquid]

If so then I was pretty immoral this morning as I had an artery clogging egg McMuffin and a cigarette before arriving to work.

[z3n]

If so then I was pretty immoral this morning as I had an artery clogging egg McMuffin and a cigarette before arriving to work.
*gasp* :o How could you be so immoral?

[Dux]

Mmm…good point. But what if you’re in a lot of incurable physical pain, or what if you don’t have a family. Would it still be immoral then? If it were causing you extreme pain to stay alive wouldn’t it be more selfish for someone to insist that you live?
That's different, of course. If you're in that amount of pain, it would be selfish of your family to not allow you to die.

Well what about sugar and junk food? Enough of that can give you health problems and kill you too. What about skydiving and bungee jumping? I guess what I’m asking is that if smoking, as a bad activity that can kill you is considered immoral by you, then where do you draw the line. I’m sure someone that smokes might never skydive because they consider it “suicide”.
Well, there's no simple answer, as you have pointed out. Overconsumption of sugar (carbohydrates) is a huge problem today. I myself couldn't imagine having to refrain from a Coke every now and then, but if it became a physical problem, I would have to. Skydiving and bungeejumping, on the other hand, does not harm you every time. And the chance of fatal outcome is comparatively small.

Here’s an interesting question. Given that suicide is immoral and smoking is not, would it be immoral for somebody to smoke with the intent of killing themselves? In other words, can morals be deemed solely on intent or just on actions?
I would say that it would be an unnecessarily prolonged and painful way to kill yourself. But suicide is suicide, how long it takes would be irrelevant.

[solidsquid]

If so then I was pretty immoral this morning as I had an artery clogging egg McMuffin and a cigarette before arriving to work.
*gasp* :o How could you be so immoral?
I'll be really immoral on the way home and eat some Twinkies.

[ocmpoma]

"ocmpoma wrote:
Depends.
On what? Or were you just making a joke? :)"

It depends on the situation and all factors concerned. I don't think it is possible, really, to generalize morality. For one person, harming themselves might be moral; for another, the same act with differing circumstances would not be. Also, that is my moral view - as a moral subjectivist, I say that it is entirely possible that an action is immoral for me, but moral for another (meaning that something I consider immoral might easily be considered moral by another).

[Kate]

Not if you get jalapenos on 'em.

[Spurius Furius]

If you were a lonely masochist and harmed yourself in the act of pleasing yourself, would it be immoral?

[z3n]

That's different, of course. If you're in that amount of pain, it would be selfish of your family to not allow you to die.
Okay then it sounds like we actually agree. For instance I find suicide well, quite frankly stupid, since I maintain that this could very well be the only life we get. However, under extreme circumstances (most likely old age and/or in a lot of incurable pain) I think that euthanasia, while unfortunate, could be considered as a possibility without being looked upon as immoral.

I would say that it would be an unnecessarily prolonged and painful way to kill yourself. But suicide is suicide, how long it takes would be irrelevant.
So are you saying that intent does play a role in morals? What about if the intent is bad but the outcome is good, or vise versa. Scenario: A doctor rushes though a patent on a treatment for cancer without proper testing because he wants to get the money quicker. But it turns out that his cure works and saves a lot of lives. Should he be thought of as immoral?

It depends on the situation and all factors concerned. I don't think it is possible, really, to generalize morality.
So are you saying that not only are there no moral absolutes within the whole of humanity that there aren’t necessarily even among individuals?

Well you would agree that there is moral necessity for the greater good of humanity though right? I mean morals, among other things, are what allow us to keep civilized (though the use of laws) right? I guess it’s the “greater good” idea playing a role but I’m not sure.

If you were a lonely masochist and harmed yourself in the act of pleasing yourself, would it be immoral?
Damn, good question. I guess that kind of plays into the smoking and junk food thing too and the idea of a “greater good”. If your getting more pleasure from doing those things (and your not taking away from anyone else’s) then I find it hard that it could be seen as immoral.

[Choobus]

z3n

How can you possibly say that you find suicide to be "well, quite frankly stupid.....".
Do you think that people kill themselves for a laugh? The despair that leads to killing yourself completely overrides rational thought.

I hope you never fully understand what I am saying to you.

[Rhinoqulous]

z3n

How can you possibly say that you find suicide to be "well, quite frankly stupid.....".
Do you think that people kill themselves for a laugh? The despair that leads to killing yourself completely overrides rational thought.

I hope you never fully understand what I am saying to you.
I agree. I've had a cousin and a close friend commit suicide. Were the decisions they made to kill themselves bad? Yes. But, you can't say they were stupid. A suicidal person usually feels back into a corner; that there is nothing left for them in life, so why bother going on? Labeling a suicide as "stupid" is usually anger re-directed from the self to the other, because a person is angry with themselves for being unable to spot or stop the suicide. And someone killing himself or herself out of despair is much different from euthanasia.

Rhinoq

[z3n]

Okay, well I guess stupid was a poor choice of a word.

Do you think that people kill themselves for a laugh? The despair that leads to killing yourself completely overrides rational thought.
I never said that I thought anyone did it for a laugh, but I do know that there are a lot of reasons why people kill themselves. I have heard that some people attempt it for all sorts of reasons. Depression is probably a big one, but some also do it for attention and shock value.

I hope you never fully understand what I am saying to you.
Um…why not? Do you understand what you are trying to say to me?

I've had a cousin and a close friend commit suicide….But, you can't say they were stupid.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that a person that commits suicide was stupid just that the act itself could be considered that. People do stupid things all of the time but that doesn’t mean that they are. But I admit that it probably was a poor choice of a word.

And someone killing himself or herself out of despair is much different from euthanasia.
Right. Didn’t I make that clear in my post that I thought that?

So what would someone label the act of suicide as? Is there even a simple label to give it or is it too situationally dependent?

[ocmpoma]

"So are you saying that not only are there no moral absolutes within the whole of humanity that there aren’t necessarily even among individuals?"
Yes.

"Well you would agree that there is moral necessity for the greater good of humanity though right? I mean morals, among other things, are what allow us to keep civilized (though the use of laws) right? I guess it’s the “greater good” idea playing a role but I’m not sure."
I could shrug this off by saying that necessities don't really exist - but I'll put in more effort than that:
Morals are what allow us to live together as societies. Without them, you would have chaos. We are social beings and most of our 'gut-feeling' morality is derived from this. I also think that a lot of 'unsavory' aspects of human nature, such as the willingness to follow an 'alpha male', and the desire (and desire to do whatever it takes) to become such an alpha, also arise from this societal nature.

[psyadam]

I'm assuming the question is "Is it immoral to harm yourself intentionally". Because otherwise the answer would definately be no.

Then the question becomes what is a moral?

If a moral is something that should always be adhered to dogmatically, then all morals are stupid and the question doesn't matter.

If a moral is a general rule like in chess that says "don't move your queen out too early in the opening", then I would say yes. However like all things that are immoral solving the problem can be a very tricky thing to do.

I have often had suicidal thoughts myself, so listen to what I have to say. The reason I have suicidal thoughts often have to do with the fact that I am gay, and because of fears about my future. So in my opinion I think most people who feel suicidal it is not because of a mental disorder like "bipolar" but rather because of problems like the one I have. I knew a kid who killed himself that I was rather sure that he was homosexual but when I talked to their parents after he died and told them that they didn't believe me--however their lesbian daughter who happened to be present said "I told you so".

The point is that I don't think this kid was "bipolar" at all. I think that is just a cop-out so that nobody has to claim responsibility. How many people have to die before we realize this?

[Choobus]

[

I hope you never fully understand what I am saying to you.
Um…why not? Do you understand what you are trying to say to me?

I think you know that I am making a distinction between intellectual understanding and the understanding that comes from experience. I do not wish the experience in question upon you, that's all

[z3n]

Oh, okay that makes sense.

For the record I wasn’t making a joke or anything, I really wasn’t quite clear at what you were getting at, but I think that I’m tracking now.

[valleyshrew]

I think that yes it is immoral to harm yourself. But you have to expand on the definition of harm. An example, in the past I cut myself, it lasted about four years, and I wouldn't consider it harm, because the benefits outweighed the "harmfulness" of it. Would eating cake be harmful? No. Smoking harmful? If you don't enjoy it in any way, then yes.

[Sir Sin-O-Lot]

Why not.

[Spurius Furius]

I think that yes it is immoral to harm yourself. But you have to expand on the definition of harm. An example, in the past I cut myself, it lasted about four years, and I wouldn't consider it harm, because the benefits outweighed the "harmfulness" of it. Would eating cake be harmful? No. Smoking harmful? If you don't enjoy it in any way, then yes.
OK, I'll bite, what do you mean by "cutting yourself" and how was it beneficial?

[valleyshrew]

OK, I'll bite, what do you mean by "cutting yourself" and how was it beneficial?
I mean small incisions in arms, chest or legs (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v675/valleyshrew/self%20harm/archivesofpain.jpg) to allow blood flow.

It felt good.

It's like sex. Sex has many possible negative consequences, but it is pleasurable, so it's not harm.

[z3n]

It's like sex. Sex has many possible negative consequences, but it is pleasurable, so it's not harm.
But what if you are doing some sexual act that does cause harm, like cheating on a spouse, is it immoral then?

Or what if two adult siblings like having sex and there’s no possibility of pregnancy (she’s barren)? Is that an immoral sexual act?

[lesserpanda]

I believe it is a hard line to argue to say that self harm is immoral. First of all, who gets to decide what hurts who how much? So, cutting yourself is harmful. Well, so is smoking. And eating junk food. in fact too much food in general is harmful. And not getting enough exercise. That's pretty harmful. Are people who don't exercise immoral?

If we begin to say things which hurt ourselves alone should be considered immoral, we cross the line of bodily autonomy. i am aware that others must be considered - i think it's a pretty rotton thing to do to ask a four year old girl to grow up knowing her dad killed himself. But i think it's also pretty rotton to ask the dad, who is in so much excrucating emotional pain and desperation that he wants to kill himself, to live on, and call him immoral for wanting to end his suffering. it's a lose-lose situation, but i dont know when we should cross the line and force people's autonomy away from them, when others are hurt only indirectly by the action (not directly - ie. in this line of moral reasoning, it is immoral if he actually kills the daughter, as this is direct hurt, and crosses the line of her autonomy, etc etc)

I still don't really know, though, it's a hard question to answer.

and valleyshrew - you're going to have a hard time arguing that pleasurable things are, by virtue of this pleasure-giving, moral. If i have pleasure from killing six billion people, the most ecstatic pleasure imaginable (we might need to get monica bellucci to help us in imagining that) does that make it right? I'm interested to see a justification (or monica bellucci.)

[baric]

Most people would agree that actions that someone does that harms or possibly harms other people are morally wrong. But what if the action only harms the person doing it? Is it possible that an action is morally wrong solely for the reason that it harms the person undertaking the action? For example, might it be morally wrong to smoke just because it harms the smoker and for no other reason?
How can anything be morally "wrong" when all involved in the act are informed, consenting adults?

[z3n]

How can anything be morally "wrong" when all involved in the act are informed, consenting adults?
So are you saying that if two adult siblings like having sex with each other and there’s no possibility of pregnancy (she’s barren) then it’s not wrong?

[baric]

How can anything be morally "wrong" when all involved in the act are informed, consenting adults?
So are you saying that if two adult siblings like having sex with each other and there’s no possibility of pregnancy (she’s barren) then it’s not wrong?
That is exactly what I am saying.

[God, my arse]

It is not so much wrong as it is biologically, socially and supposedly physiologically taboo.

[z3n]

How can anything be morally "wrong" when all involved in the act are informed, consenting adults?
So are you saying that if two adult siblings like having sex with each other and there’s no possibility of pregnancy (she’s barren) then it’s not wrong?
That is exactly what I am saying.
Mmmm…interesting. So I guess you probably think that there shouldn’t be laws against family members marrying then huh?

[z3n]

It is not so much wrong as it is biologically, socially and supposedly physiologically taboo.
Isn't that the same thing as being wrong since taboo means banned on grounds of morality or taste?

[baric]

So are you saying that if two adult siblings like having sex with each other and there’s no possibility of pregnancy (she’s barren) then it’s not wrong?
That is exactly what I am saying.
Mmmm…interesting. So I guess you probably think that there shouldn’t be laws against family members marrying then huh?
You obviously are not too familiar with human history. Do a little genealogical research. You probably won't have to go back more than 5-6 generations to find cousins marrying in your family tree.

[lesserpanda]

taboo does not implicate any specific grounds for being such - things can be taboo because people don't like them, because they are unhealthy, because they are seen as distasteful - all sorts of reasons. Morality would be one of the lowest on the list - murder, for example, is not adequately discribed as 'taboo'.

taboo tends to refer to social customs, i think. though i could be wrong.

To chip in about the siblings debate - though i find it personally distasteful, thanks to the level of immature my brothers are, I find no grounds for immorality provided there is no risk of children being produced.

[Lundie]

Hmmm, this is a very interesting topic. The concept of morality is a subject that I've debated upon for some time but this is the first time that I've seen it applied to the subject of harming oneself. Well done z3n.

In my opinion, morality is not a universal concept. As I've argued in this (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=738#) thread, an individual's or society's concept of morality is ultimately defined by the individual him/herself.

Therefore if one were to examine a specific scenario in order to determine whether a specific action or scenario is moral or immoral, one has examine it from two viewpoints, that of the party being examined (hereon referred to as A) and that of the party doing the examination (B).

Supposing, for instance, and because the subject of smoking has been raised, that two individuals sat in opposite ends of a restaurant. A takes out a ciggie and lights up. B, a militant anti-smoking campaigner, is affronted and poses this question, "is it immoral for you, A, to smoke and thereby harm yourself?".

From the morality viewpoint of A, assuming that A does not consider his/her habit harmful or simply doesn't care, A smoking is not immoral because the action is not contrary to A's code of ethics. From the morality viewpoint of B however, A smoking is immoral because for B, smoking affects A's system and could cause cancer and other health complications for A. Therefore B classifies A's smoking as immoral.

But what right has B to impose his/her code of ethics upon A? A's smoking does not directly affect B. Would B be justified, based on his/her own concept of morality, to walk over and tell off A for immoral conduct?

Let's get a little off track and into more hazardous territory here.

Suppose that two siblings have been discovered regularly having sex and the news spreads like wildfire throughout the proverbial town of Banana. One of the siblings is barren and there is no possibility of pregnancy whatsoever. The town members however, are adamantly against incest and condemns the siblings to varying degrees because the siblings were perceived by them to have trespassed upon Banana's concept of immorality.

In the siblings' minds however, they see nothing immoral in their actions. They perceive their sexual union as a consensual act between two responsible adults that does not directly affect the town members of Bananas. They did not harm nor kill nor rob nor steal from the good people of Banana. So what had right had the rest of Banana to judge the siblings by the Banana's concept of morality?

Our own distaste and taboos regarding supposedly 'immoral' practices such as cannibalism, incest, head hunting, and suicide are all products of our indoctrination in the Western concept of morality, rather similar to the way that we, as atheists, perceive the Theists as indoctrinated with religion.

To this day, Melanesian tribes condone practises that in America might be termed incestous and immoral. The Japanese once considered the act of ritual suicide a way of saving one's honour in the face of defeat and the pinnacle of their morality. Would we, with our predominantly European way of thought, have a right to call these practises immoral?


One man's morality is another's immorality. To impose one's concept of morality onto another is perceived as immoral by the person imposed upon. Based on the arguments above, the notion that Americans perceive the practise of head hunting among the tribes of Borneo as 'immoral' is no more relevant than if the tribes of Borneo had perceived America's use of cluster bombs as 'immoral'.

And from that, we can deduce that 'No', it is not immoral to harm yourself. :D

[lesserpanda]

well said!

[Maxine]

This is such a good question and Lundie you have provided a brilliant answer. Anyhow I have often thought about suicide or euthanasia and found quite a lot of resistance towards it. The objections I often heard are cowardice or that it is immoral because others will suffer from a loved one’s death—but I totally disagree. What we can withstand from life varies among individuals as well as our own pain thresholds. When I think of Virginia Woolf walking into the river with stones loaded in her pockets because she feared not being able to recover from another lengthy and major mental illness, it seems legitimate to me. Arthur Koestler suffered from Parkinson's disease and terminal leukemia; he took his own life—and I don’t blame him.