Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that's something a rational person should do. Self destruction hardly ever is rational however, and it's near impossible to see all of the collateral damage you make when destroying yourself.
Irrationality (own or others') can trap people in situations where self-destruction is the most rational choice. Furthermore, we have a bit of a scoping issue on our hands: we default to assuming that self-preservation is rational. Self-preservation may be rational behavior for animals. But humans are qualitatively different from animals in at least the following aspects: - We have language, which lets us continue ou…
>Is affecting others for selfish reasons a rational choice there?
Selfish reasons or no, in most cases it's not practically possible to do anything that does not affect others. Whether you have affected them positively or negatively, and whether you are to be held responsible, is for others to decide - mostly arbitrarily, that is to say in accordance with a whole host of suprarational factors.
>Suicide is both final and most directly individual, which is why I distinguish it.
I didn't really notice you making a distinction. You're free to uphold one, of course - wherever you consider appropriate.
>"Many" and "an alternative of just...waiting to die" suggest a far greater scale of "rational irrationality" than I think actually occurs. How often are people faced with situations where their only realistic alternative boils down to "waiting to die"?
Who said "only"? It's just the default option.
>Suicide fits your criterion, but not alcoholism
Use of intoxicants cause consciousness to change, then, sure enough, temporarily stop existing. It can also cause people to do reckless shit and risk their lives more. The human brain is a brilliant inhibition machine.
Addiction may be understood as a process that occurs within a person's self, or outside of it, depending on where the locus of control is defined. This is beside the point, though. It is rare that one pursues addiction with the express purpose of obliterating the self, though it's not unheard of.
You seem to be reading in my comment a distinction between suicide and other self-destructive behaviors; a distinction which I don't remember putting there.
>From your perspective, you mean. People have opinions, thank you very much
People have perspectives, and everyone's is valid (when presented in good faith).
People also have opinions. However, unlike the perspectives, some opinions are incorrect and worth disproving.
What's worse, people also tend to mix up their perspectives with their opinions, and, most perniciously of all, with their identities. I don't know what to do about that, sorry.
>Most rational? Really?
According to my opinion and perspective, whose else. Why would you imply that I mean otherwise?
>I'm not sure about that, but perhaps.
It all depends on the situation, of course. After all, you never can truly be certain what the others see.
>but that doesn't mean we can't talk about how self-destructive behaviors can be harmful.
Sure, if it helps anyone.
>I don't think they would be taking the most rational course of action through suicide. In fact, I highly doubt more can't be done with the their effort than without.
Where did I say that they find life not worth living, so they kill themselves? If only.
I'm saying that they find life not worth living, because the things that are supposed to intrinsically attract them to living, are made unattainable; so they end up living lives that are ultimately harmful to others, because someone promised them that some way of life or other is what will give their lives meaning.
By the time they have the power to change anything, the world would better off without them - but good luck getting them to budge. It's funny, give em a decade or two and Gen Z are gonna be absolutely MASSIVE boomers, the likes of which the world has never seen before.
>Is that really what you got from my comment
Not really. I got some help with staying awake though, which was nice. Cheers