As the concepts of selfishness go, I posit that suicide is the ultimate act of self love and narcissism. There is no act which portrays greater selfishness than suicide. (Ed. Note: I will say that suicide to prevent disclosing state secrets would be outside of the scope of this argument).
Say, for example, that each of us makes X number of decisions in a day. Considering that the average lifespan in the United States is somewhere in the range of 75 years, we’ll say that the average person makes 27,525X (365 x 75) decisions in their lifetime. However, some decisions carry more weight than others.
The effective power of each decision is based on the number of future decisions it affects. Huge decisions include where to attend college, which job to take, and who to marry. These decisions affect thousands of future decisions. However, in each of these cases, the decision creates the opportunity for more decisions. If you consider the decision of where to attend college: once that has been determined, students can choose which major to study and which classes to take. Each college has different classes so the choice for college Y has opened up a set of questions unique to that decision. The same follows with most every decision in life.
Except suicide.
An 18-year old college student would have roughly 20,805X decisions to make in their remaining years. Each decision, statistically speaking would equal only (0.0048 * (1/x))% in terms of overall decision making. It’s a statistical triviality.
Suicide, on the other hand would eliminate the possibility of 20,805X decisions. Therefore the adjusted weight of a decision of suicide would mean that it was the most significant by limiting the frequency of future decisions.
Decisions and Happiness
Every decision we make has basis in some sort of rational (or irrational thought). Why did you choose college Y? Perhaps it was the majors offered. Perhaps it was where your friends were going. Why did you choose your mate? Why did you choose your job? In each case, there are a set of reasons as to why we choose what we choose. In every decision, we make choices based on the perceived happiness we will receive from the decisions.
But wait, you say. What about selfless and religious people. Even their motives are based on their personal happiness. They believe in a truth claim that prescribes a certain set of actions. These actions are imperative to please a deity or are a set of cultural mores that provide structure to life. In both cases, personal hedonism still affects the choices one makes. However, narcissism is abated because the overarching goals and worldview are defined by an entity other than oneself. Serving someone else negates a philosophy of narcissism.
In the case of typical narcissism, the question of selflessness and religion is moot. Narcissism prescribes personal happiness as the only attainable goal. Without this, life is not worth living. Or better put, in a life without happiness, happiness is best and most quickly attained by removing life. If you cannot be happy while living, then happiness must be attainable in the absence of life.
Therefore, since the act of suicide most quickly attains a goal of personal happiness and removes the possibility of future actions, suicide is the most self-gratifying act men perform.
What do you say? Is this a reasonable position?
Disclaimer 1: Yes, this is a very morbid topic.
Disclaimer 2: No, I’m not considering suicide.

It is for peace that war is.

What kind of life could possibly be derived from a general assumption that things could always be worse? Life based on potential negatives is no life at all. How could joy be found and life lived if the only sustaining thought were, “it could always be worse?”
Don’t focus on what could be wrong. Turn your eyes to that which is good and celebrate those things.

Who’s better?
1) The man who does good things, but in his heart he despises good things..
2) The man who struggles to do good, but in his heart he seeks good…
What do you think…and why?

The problem with hitting home runs is that everyone wonders what’s wrong when you only hit a double.

From time to time, I am confronted with my own mortality. Like most people, I believe that I have a long and healthy life ahead of me. I would never expect to die anytime before 80. Of course, this is nonsense because I don’t know what the future holds for me. What I do know is this:
I fear dying more than I fear death.
I look around the world and see suffering and pain as death comes near, and it brings scores of questions to my mind. But mainly it makes me think about sin… And the reality that our reality here on earth is defined by sin and death.
I read the last chapter in the book, and I know there’s more after death. And I suppose that’s the only way you can have hope in life.

Why do we desire certain things? Is out of self-seeking passion? Is it out of greed? Or is it a genuine longing that is beneficial?
How do you determine where your desires fit? How do you separate yourself from your wishes and discern what is good, honest, and helpful? And likewise, how do you know when your desires are wrongly motivated?
What do you think?

A few years ago, my dad took a trip to Wisconsin to consult with a few churches. As a sign of their gratitude, they gave him a hunk of sharp Wisconsin cheddar. Being good parents, they gladly shared some of the sharp creamy goodness with me while I visited. It was some of the tastiest cheese that I have ever eaten.
While I was in Europe earlier this year, I was also presented with some of the most obscure and unusual cheeses. They were unlike anything I had ever eaten, and to a certain extent, some were in a group of foods that I generally avoid. But all of them had more flavor and texture than most of the cheese I usually eat here. And to many of the French, such cheese consumption is a very normal activity.
But here, I eat the cheap manufactured cheddar cheese blocks from HEB, and tend to be completely happy doing so. That is what I have always eaten and my tastes have accommodated those tendencies. I am accustomed to eating cheese that has little flavor and poor texture.
In fact, I am so accustomed to that cheese that my tastes have been trained to dislike the more flavorful varieties. You see, my habits have caused me to be satisfied with cheap and inferior products.
Of course, my stories about dairy products that have little impact on my life, but I wonder how often my tastes preclude me from trying and doing the better things. Like not enjoying exotic cheeses, I think I have become complacent in other areas of life, not understanding how good change can be or not even considering the possibility of change. And either way, I don’t want to allow my natural tendencies to hinder me from enjoying the best things in life.

We all know of the New Year’s resolution: I pledge to do X starting January 1st of next year. It’s a great ploy to allow yourself to continue doing what you’ve been doing for another few weeks. So many people say, “I’m going to lose X number of pounds next year, but I’m going to wait until January to start because I want to enjoy a few Holiday meals.”
You know what this means? This means that we don’t really want to do X. Whatever we resolve to do is not important enough for us to begin today. We say it’s important, but in effect, we declare it worthless because of the wait. If I need to make a change in my life, I should commence that change today.
Procrastination may play a large role in this problem–I say that I want to be Y…that is the goal of my life, but yet I fail (and sometimes refuse) to make the changes to attain goal Y. And I foolishly look back at the past years and wonder why I’m not there yet.
Our delusion lies in the fact that we trick ourselves into believing that delayed change is as valuable as actual and effectual change. We end up saying great things while slipping more deeply into muck.

This week I’ve been reading about the controversy associated with Michael J. Fox’s commercials supporting embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. Of course, Rush Limbaugh immediately criticized it as a political ploy, which, it was, but political ploys aren’t necessarily bad.
To begin with, I don’t have a problem with a celebrity (or anyone else, for that matter) making a commercial supporting a cause they believe in. It seems to be the American way, even if the commercial is based more on an emotional plea than a substantive logical argument. I would argue that 90%+ of the commercials on television are an appeal to emotion. Why else do beer commercials have scores of young, blond-headed women?
I read an article (Link) this morning that said the NIH (National Institute of Health) agreed with the premise of the commercial—that embryonic stem cells show the most promise in curing Parkinson’s disease. A reader commented on the article, arguing that adult stem cells are presently more effective than embryonic stem cells. Another reader quickly pointed out that we never know what is effective until it has been researched. 500 years ago, people would have scoffed to hear that a mold could cure a myriad of diseases (penicillin). So the argument that embryonic stem cells aren’t currently effectual does not mean much.
Fox seems like a nice guy, and I certainly don’t want him to suffer from a disease that is slowly eroding his ability to live. Say for example, another adult had the cure to Parkinson’s disease. The adult walked over to Fox and said, “Michael, I can cure your disease. All that is required is for you to take some cells from my spine and inject them in your brain. Unfortunately, when you take these cells from me, I’ll be a quadriplegic.” I’m sure that Fox would thank him for his help and graciously decline the offer. Why–he could not accept an offer that destroyed another life.
What if that man was a convicted felon that was soon to be executed? The man was going to die within the next twenty-four hours but refused to sign the consent forms because he was a Muslim and believed that would defile his body. Would it be right to force him to give his spinal cells to save Fox? Once again, I’m sure Fox would decline this offer because it would violate the sanctity of life.
Most of the western world has an intrinsic belief that human life is worthwhile and should not unnecessarily be destroyed. That is the reason that we have statutes against murder and dismemberment. In fact, most of our laws have a basis in the concept that it is “wrong” to injure someone else. So the question we must ask is: what is human life?
The root question in the stem cell debate is not the effectual nature of the cells, but a question of what is human life and when does it begin? Is a child with down-syndrome human? Is an elderly person with Alzheimer’s disease a human? In both cases, we would agree that these people are human and their lives, however difficult they may be, are valuable. So then, when does it begin? Most in the scientific world believe that life begins after birth, but in the Christian world, life beings at conception. And for me, since I believe that life begins at the point of conception, I must unequivocally state that destroying fertilized human eggs is an unethical behavior. I cannot condone a behavior that is unethical.
Most of us agree that theft is wrong. We know it’s wrong when some bully steals another kid’s lunch money. What if I asked you if stealing some paper clips from your work was wrong? What about stealing $2 billion from your work is wrong? Would you agree that both activities are unethical? Both actions are wrong, even though the amount of wrong done seems to be different. It’s easy to repay a few paper clips. It’s tough to repay $2 billion. To a certain extent, we feel like killing embryos is similar to taking some paper clips: it’s small and no one will care. But the premise is the same—the amount of wrong done does not change it’s natural unethical state.
You may ask, “What if embryonic stem cells will save and improve the lives of millions? Doesn’t this make it an ethical behavior? I mean, the end is so beneficial, we must suffer through the means, right.” All this argument sounds nice, but it’s a nasty and slippery slope that will lead to unintended consequences. During the 1930’s and 1940’s, Germany embarked on a number of scientific experiments on Jewish and political prisoners. They learned a lot about the human body, including some significant gains in our knowledge of hypothermia. They did this because they believed the suffering inflicted by the test subjects would be more beneficial to the rest of society. And that made their actions right. It didn’t hurt that they believed the test subjects were not the chosen race.
The question therefore is this: what is human life? Don’t allow the debate to rage on about curing diseases. This isn’t about being “anticure” as Robert Alter of Newsweek proposed (Link). The issue is about what constitutes life.
But you ask, “Andrew, what happens if you get Parkinson’s disease one day, and scientists have developed a cure using embryonic stem cells. Would you take the treatment?” This is a tough question that… I would like to say, “No, I would not,” but I’m not suffering through it and I would have a hard time turning down something that would help me, even if gained from unethical means. I suppose this is why it’s more important to stop the experimentation before we go too far. The road would take us to dark places that I fear we do not expect nor do we want to experience.