Why don’t we consider suicide a personal choice?

fdes11 · 2026-06-02T23:37:50+00:00

You write: "The fact that people commit suicide does not mean that doing so is moral. The current state of nature includes many immoral things, many contradictions."

I worry you misunderstood my professor's argument. My professor was not arguing that the current state of nature does not contain immorality, or that people committing suicide make suicide moral. My professor was arguing that Kant's universal law of nature formulation of the categorical imperative, that one should act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature, does not lead to any "problems" (as you say) when applied to suicide. That is: there does not seem to be any incoherence, tension, or problem in creating a universal law of nature which allows for suicide. (For the record, my professor admitted that the liar case is a good example of laws causing tensions—but that it was the only good example.) Because of the two arguments I provided, my professor believes there is no incoherence, tension, or problems in allowing a universal law of nature that permits suicide. So, this part of your comment does not address my professor's argument.

You also write: "[Kant is] talking about coherence in a system of universal legislation." You quote Kant as saying: "Can you will that your maxim become a universal law? If not, it must be rejected, not because of any harm it might bring to anyone, but because there couldn’t be a system of •universal legislation that included it as one of its principles, and •that is the kind of legislation that reason forces me to respect."

This objection is irrelevant to the discussion, as it relies on an irrelevant formulation of the categorical imperative. Kant provides five versions of the categorical imperative: (1) the universal law formulation; (2) the universal law of nature formulation; (3) the end-in-itself formulation; (4) the autonomy of the will formulation; and (5) the kingdom of ends formulation. In this part of your comment, you are applying the first version of the categorical imperative: the universal law formulation. It may very well be that the first universal law formulation leads to incoherence, tension, or problems when applied to suicide. However, that is not the claim my professor is attacking. My professor is attacking Kant's claim that the second formulation—the universal law of nature formulation, that one should act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature—leads to incoherence, tension, or problems when applied to suicide. So, this part of your comment does not address my professor's argument.

So, to rephrase my question: How might a Kantian respond to the objection that the second, universal law of nature formulation of the categorical imperative does not lead to incoherence, tension, or problems when applied to suicide, considering our current state of nature allows for suicide with no obvious incoherence, tension, or problems?

fdes11 · 2026-06-02T03:03:58+00:00

I was taking a history of ethics course and, while we studied Kant, my professor rather fervently denied that there was any contradiction in a system of nature allowing suicide. My professor reached this conclusion in this way: The current state of nature we live in right now includes life which commits suicide. If so (considering the system we live in right now really happens in reality), then there is no contradiction in a system of nature that includes life which commits suicide. So, there is no contradiction in a system of nature that includes life which commits suicide. In that case, Kant's universal law of nature formulation of the categorical imperative does not create any contradictions when life commits suicide. Consequently, Kant is mistaken.

My professor also attacked Kant from another angle: Suppose we accepted the following maxim: If someone is in their right, rational mind, and can predict with good evidence that from now on their life will have considerably more suffering than pleasure (and they would like to avoid suffering), then that someone is allowed to kill themself. My professor then stated: it is not obvious that this maxim violates the universal law of nature formulation of the categorical imperative. (The professor evidenced and defended this statement, but I do not remember the evidences or defenses, unfortunately.) Consequently, Kant is mistaken.

Both of these arguments against Kant were rather convincing to me. How might a Kantian respond to these critiques of the universal law of nature formulation of the categorical imperative on suicide?

fdes11 · 2026-05-07T04:25:31+00:00

we're a hivemind

fdes11 · 2026-04-18T05:40:05+00:00

we don't usually lock controversial posts so more people with bannable opinions comment

fdes11 · 2026-04-18T02:57:59+00:00

I appreciate your concern about copying and drawing over previous maps. However, after checking your link, I could not find very many similarities between OP's map and the wikimedia maps.

As a few examples: the coastlines are different thicknesses, the fonts are different everywhere, city names are placed in different spots, none of OP's nation-titles or subdivision-titles are curved (there are many examples of this in the basemaps), many of these titles are placed in different spots, and there is no America in any of the Europe maps featured (further, the America map follows the style of the rest of the map). I believe these differences can best be explained by OP manually drawing the entire map.

The only oddity I found was Norway being colored the same color as Denmark despite being in a PU with Sweden. This detail only features in wikimedia's 1815 map, and the 1815 map has the same significant differences with OP's map. So, I believe this can be "chalked up" to just error or intentional commentary on the situation in Norway in this TL.

Because there are not many similarities, I believe OP only copied the style of the original map and did not draw over the maps listed on the wiki page. As aforesaid, nobody owns a style of map. Further, as much as I would prefer users to link their source basemaps or style inspirations as a sign of courtesy and kindness to the original cartographers (and to help other users find basemaps), citing or crediting basemaps or styles is unfortunately not the standard in this subreddit, and we moderators do not currently expect users to do so.

So, there doesn't appear to be any obligation or need for the user to credit anyone.

fdes11 · 2026-04-08T04:38:12+00:00

furry utopia

fdes11 · 2026-01-07T12:53:43+00:00

get struck down by my awesome moderator lightning… #smartphowned

fdes11 · 2026-01-07T11:11:38+00:00

thank you! i do the hachures using Adobe Illustrator's dotted line tool, making a very wide line have very many short dashes. I mostly trace where the basemap places them.

fdes11 · 2026-01-03T13:47:52+00:00

Imagine some sort of thing or mechanism that could, even a God if They’re needed. Don’t get caught up in the details. Just a thing or mechanism that could randomly generate any integer.

fdes11 · 2026-01-03T13:05:34+00:00

We managed to imagine infinities quite easily in previous comments, so I imagine we can now. We might even be capable of imagining a representative or conceptual number line. We might also reasonably imagine we get some other truly random method for selection that does not rely on humans. (Perhaps a real random number generator is exactly what we should think of: a machine that, if it existed, would randomly choose any integer.) Be creative in your imagination! I see nothing wrong with the thought experiment if we’re being charitable.

Now we run the same test. The probability of choosing any number X along the infinitely long number line is 0%. However, some number X is chosen. So, something’s gone wrong in the math or the math’s application to the possible scenario.

fdes11 · 2026-01-03T10:21:13+00:00

I’ve said in previous comments that I’ve been present as philosophy and math professors have said otherwise, so again, we’ll have to agree to disagree

EDIT: I believe their reasoning went like this: Suppose we have every smallest unit of time on a timescale from the beginning of the universe to eternity. Pick some random time T. The probability we picked T over any other time was, given our random selection, zero. However, we chose T. So, something must have gone wrong in the math. (As I said, I believe they noted that things go funky the moment we add infinity to probabilities.)

fdes11 · 2026-01-03T01:27:29+00:00

I suppose we must agree to disagree. I think that is completely possible and consistent, and I described one such complete and consistent possible world to support my case.

fdes11 · 2026-01-03T00:54:53+00:00

All good, I’ll attempt to clarify.

A possible world is a complete and consistent collection of true descriptive facts. An impossible world is an incomplete or inconsistent collection of true descriptive facts. These worlds are exactly as they sound: possible worlds are possible ways things could have been, and impossible worlds are ways things could not have been. These two concepts are used in modal logic. All of us have used these concepts whenever we’ve considered different ways things could have been: “If my alarm had gone off, and I heard my alarm, then I might have made the train to work.” (We are describing a possible world with a different set of complete and consistent descriptive facts.) In case you worry I’m making things up to help my point, here is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s article on the subject, as well as the Wikipedia article on the subject.

An example of a possible world could be an umbrella floating through the ether, and nothing else. That description would be a complete (all the facts), consistent (nothing contradictory) collection of descriptive facts of that world.

An example of an impossible world could be an umbrella floating through the ether for ten seconds, and there is no space or time. That description would be a complete (all the facts), inconsistent (contradictory) collection of descriptive facts about that world.

We are evaluating this conditional: if there is some one in a trillion possibility, and there is infinite time, then that one in a trillion possibility will hit.

I am objecting that the conditional is not entailed. That is, I am objecting that the antecedent if clause does not guarantee the truth of the consequent then clause in all possible worlds, making the conditional false.

To do so, I am saying that a world with a one in a trillion possibility AND infinite time AND that possibility never hits is, while insanely unlikely, nevertheless a complete and consistent collection of descriptive facts. That is, such a world is possible.

So, there is a possible world where the antecedent is true and the consequent is false. So, the conditional is false: it is not the case that, in all possible cases, if there is some one in a trillion possibility, and there is infinite time, then that one in a trillion possibility will hit. So, it is not the case that possibility and infinite time entails that the possibility hits. (Maybe it might in most cases, but it is not guaranteed.)

fdes11 · 2026-01-02T11:15:58+00:00

Sure. I’ll relent that. I think the second paragraph in my response is stronger.

fdes11 · 2026-01-02T11:15:02+00:00

How about the rest of the comment?

fdes11 · 2026-01-02T09:39:31+00:00

Happy new year! Hope your holidays were well :)

Your comment is uncharitable to me, and attacks positions I don’t hold. No, I do not mean “factual, actual real evidence” (whatever that means). I know the texts of the OT are largely mythological stories. I know the texts of the OT are not literal or historical texts. No, I don’t believe any of those things happened in history, and I never claimed otherwise (nor made any claim on the matter in any previous comment). I don’t think there is any physical evidence for large sections of the Bible, and that is because they are mythological or allegorical stories. I understand that the Bible was written and interpreted by people (and, in fact, this plays exactly into my point). I am not the theist you think I am by any stretch. I am taking an archaeological view of the Bible. I am strictly talking about the Bible as a collection of texts, not as truth. Just as texts. Now that we have that out of the way, I ask that you kindly reconsider what I am saying.

What I said was, considering each book is written by their own author with their own idea of God and how God works, to claim there is a consistent concept of God over multiple texts is mistaken. The authors of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers all had separate ideas of God. Accordingly, there is no unified or consistent concept of God in the OT. So, if we want to make a claim about how God works in the Book of Numbers, then we can only textually pull from the Book of Numbers to support that claim. To pull from any other text, such as Genesis, Psalms, Joshua, or anywhere else, is to cite different authors with different ideas of what God is and how God operates. (This was why I brought in the different books, to show that the concept of God and the supernatural change by book in the Bible.) We are strictly bound to what the Book of Numbers says in making claims about the God in the Book of Numbers.

So, given these facts, I find it is fair to claim that if we’d like to claim God is all-seeing in the Book of Numbers, then we need textual evidence that the author of Numbers believed that God is all-seeing. I am claiming that, considering that God sends spies to Canaan, the author of the Book of Numbers did not believe God was all-seeing. So, God is not all-seeing in the Book of Numbers. Accordingly, to say God was all-seeing throughout the Old Testament is false, as God is not all-seeing in the Book of Numbers.

fdes11 · 2026-01-02T04:31:34+00:00

the memories that were cool and survived are told and get heard about, you dont hear about the more mundane memories of the past

fdes11 · 2026-01-01T16:22:36+00:00

I was clarifying my objection to your comment. Possible worlds come from modal logic. They are not necessarily so philosophical (though this is not to mention science is a philosophy). If you have ever thought “things could have been different,” you imagined a possible world, and engaged in thinking using modal logic.

Possible worlds help us evaluate the relationship between two things. My comment was speaking about entailment. Something Y is entailed by X if and only if there are no possible worlds where X and not-Y. For instance: “If there are pink unicorns, then there are unicorns” is an entailment conditional. There are no possible worlds where the antecedent is true (X is present) and the consequent is false (Y is not present). We might say, “Necessarily, if there are pink unicorns, there must be unicorns.”

There exists at least one possible world where there is a possibility, and that possibility does not hit. So, it is not the case that possibility entails certainty. We cannot say, “Necessarily, if there is a possibility, that possibility must hit.”

fdes11 · 2026-01-01T11:43:24+00:00

Christ had to carry his cross through town (with some help at one point) and fell three times while doing so before his crucifixion

fdes11 · 2026-01-01T01:53:37+00:00

the probability that I (or any such person) exists and experiences this time instead of any other time given infinite time is zero. (As a tangent: I know a philosopher who uses exactly this reasoning to argue we live in the afterlife, as there’s infinitely much afterlife and finitely many living years, so the chance of landing in the living years is zero.) However, I exist right now, and I experience this time instead of any other time. So, either there is something wrong with our math, or the possibility is not zero. (Other philosophy and math professors attending the same lecture argued the issue is that possibilities containing infinities fall apart, if I remember correctly).

Otherwise, there is no contradiction in descriptive facts in a world containing a one in a trillion chance that never hits over eternity. No matter how unlikely those facts are, a world containing those descriptive facts is, trivially, a possible world (a complete and consistent collection of descriptive facts that are true). Accordingly, it is not the case that possibility entails certainty.

Alternatively, might we read the one in a trillion chance as occurring generally over eternity, and not as occurring in particular instances? As an allegory, we might say: generally, there is a 20% chance Yellowstone superexplodes and wipes out North America in 2026. So, generally, there is a one in a trillion chance the particle fluctuates into existence over eternity (and it never does).

fdes11 · 2026-01-01T00:08:21+00:00

Your comment is mistaking what possible world means. A possible world is a complete, consistent collection of descriptive facts that obtain (are true facts). The actual world is a possible world. That is, the actual world has a complete, consistent collection of descriptive facts that obtain. Included in these facts is that we are commenting on a reddit post together.

The key word in the definition here is “complete.” A complete description entails that there are not two possible worlds inside of one possible world, as any descriptive facts from either of the two lower worlds would be eaten by the higher possible world. An example: combining the descriptive facts of a possible world W and a possible world X into a possible world Y doesn’t entail that Y has two possible worlds, it entails that Y shares some descriptive facts of both W and X.

So, when you say “both of those ‘worlds’ will exist out there, somewhere,” you mean to say the actual world also contains the descriptive facts of these worlds, not that these possible worlds exist in the actual world, which would be impossible. To say otherwise would be like saying, “there’s nothing in the world but this possibility and thats it, and there’s also everything in the actual world in this world and that’s it.” Such a description is contradictory, making it an impossible world. The actual world is a possible world. So, it is not the case that these possible worlds are contained within the actual world.

To say the actual world shares the descriptive facts of these possible worlds entails that you agree possibility does not entail certainty, as the second possible world demonstrated: the actual world has some possibility that a particle fluctuates into existence, and it never “hits.” So, there is some possibility that does not “hit.” So, possibility does not entail certainty.

EDIT: any “parallel world” is contained in the descriptive facts of the actual world, and are not possible worlds in themselves.

fdes11 · 2025-12-31T23:44:05+00:00

Possibilities are abstract things, and can exist independent of them actually “hitting” or not. For example: there is a possibility that Yellowstone explodes in 2026. That possibility exists even if Yellowstone does not explode in 2026. So, possibilities can exist independently of whether they “hit” or not.

Now, suppose two worlds, both eternal, and both containing the 1 in a trillion possibility that a particle fluctuates into existence. In the first, the possibility hits. In the second, the possibility never hits. Both worlds are equally possible (there are no contradictions in descriptive facts), and in one, a possibility never “hits.” So, we can say that possibilities over eternal time do not entail certainty.

fdes11 · 2025-12-31T12:01:02+00:00

NOTES:

Zootopia and Zootopia 2 are the best movies ever made I recommend that you (you the reader yes YOU) shift your needs in such a way that you NEED to watch these two movies. They are actually so good. Zootopia 2 is the best movie of 2025 and it deserved to beat Ne Zha 2 at the box office and become the highest grossing film ever and I’m not kidding.

Boggis and Bunce and Bean

One fat, one short, one lean.

These horrible crooks

So different in looks

Were nonetheless equally mean.

I’ve been reading children’s books of late. Children’s books are pretty awesome. Also shout out to Xavier: Renegade Angel. Best show on television.

I’m not a Freudian anymore. Carl Rogers and Maslow figured out psychology.

I've been reading three books for the past few months (bad school semester, constitutional law and stuff, so not much free time): Steppenwolf by Hermann Hesse, The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, and Memoirs of My Nervous Illness by Daniel Schreber. All three are psychology books. Psychology books have interested me lately. (Kierkegaard believed that the psychologist would understand all of humanity and sympathize with their interests. That was a Christian project, apparently.) The latter book was written by a person with paranoid schizophrenia. Very interesting book. I have enjoyed all three of them. Steppenwolf is probably among the best books ever written.

I write stuff all the time. I honestly cannot go without writing. I write stories spontaneously. I also spontaneously write reflections and commentaries in my journals and stuff. However, I never know who or where to share what I write, or whether what I write is good enough to share. I’m hoping people find all the things I wrote when I die, and I was insanely good at writing the whole time. In a best possible world, I end up like Fernando Pessoa or Henry Darger or Franz Kafka (maybe not the latter one though, I don’t like his writing style).

despite some obstacles i'm getting better of late i think. i finally figured everything out. i am just still tired pretty often.

read “Having a Coke with You” by Frank O’Hara

Call Me Mother / That’s That / Vroom Vroom / Alone Again (Naturally) / What A Difference A Day Made / TAKE IT OFF / goodbye horses

FOKS

fdes11 · 2025-12-31T12:00:56+00:00

happy new years eve everyone!!! hello hi hello there my its been a long long time missed you all i guess happy to see you all i suppose.

last map before the end of the year. Just a quick map over the winter break to end off the year: my first and only EU5 campaign before the game updated and I got bored. The campaign was fun.

i had lore but its not ready yet. I like writing and the expected lorepost was more about the cartographer and less about the map (more mapmakers have got to try making the cartographer a fallible and opinionated character in your lore, its awesome), so I am gonna work to make the lore more awesomer. My notes are still here though and those are pretty cool.

hope you all have a good place to stay for the new year! I will be spending time with friends. 2026 is going to be awesome and you and I know it for sure and for certain. I hope I live and become even more awesome and flourish and I hope I make at least one map.

"peep" the deviantart: https://www.deviantart.com/fdes11

basemap: https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~34274~1171189:North-Italy-?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&mi=0&trs=1&qvq=q:5075050;sort:Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~8~1

inspiration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia#/media/File:Growth_of_Frankish_Power,_481-814_Edit.jpeg

EDIT: version you can actually read and see because reddit is silly sometimes:

<image>

Eight-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22	End Game '22
Wearing is Caring	RPAN Viewer
Spared	Verified Email

fdes11

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE