Is it immoral to harm yourself?

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?

No.

Depends.

[Rhinoqulous]

Maybe

That depends on what your morals are.

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.

StillSurviving wrote

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?

ocmpoma wrote

Depends.

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

BadFish wrote

That depends on what your morals are.

So are you saying that there are no moral absolutes?

Dux wrote

Depends on if it really only hurts you.

Well in the given scenario I stated that it did.

Dux wrote

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?

Dux wrote

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?

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

solidsquid wrote

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?

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.

z3n wrote

*gasp* :o How could you be so immoral?

I'll be really immoral on the way home and eat some Twinkies.

"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.

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

Dux wrote

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.

Dux wrote

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?

ocmpoma wrote

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.

Spurius Furius wrote

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.