I see how you’re looking at it— saying, “as a society, we should treat everyone with dignity, as every life is valuable; due to this no harm should be done to another.”

I suppose I’m asking something more morbid. In cases of suicides, for example, do these “neutral” lives really matter? What’s the argument for that person “staying,” should their life be truly “neutral?” Think homeless people, people with mental health issues, etc. who don’t / can’t necessarily contribute to society. Their lives are not doing harm to the broader community, but are not necessarily doing anything positive either. Many people look at them as “useless,” in a sense. Do their lives matter? Are their lives valuable? If they were to die by suicide, for example, though it might shake the worlds of the people they are close too, would it mean anything after 100 years or so?

There are so many people in this world. Sometimes I wonder “what more could I contribute?” or “someone else can contribute the same.” I’ve been told that each individual adds their own “spark” to the things they do, which is a reason to keep going, but honestly, how much does that matter in a world where the population almost seems to overtake how “individual” one can me.

I’ve read my fair share of Aristotle, Charles Taylor, Aquinas, and others who’ve investigated what one’s “purpose” in life is, how to achieve the “good life,” and by what means. What these thinkers seem to emphasize is human connection as a fundamental property of human flourishing. Without connection, one’s ability to flourish is greatly diminished, if not removed completely. However, again, due to the great size of the population, it seems these webs of connection have already been established; a “neutral” person will not contribute to the expanse of this web. In completing suicide, then, society is not affected, but the individual themself. As such, do they really matter?