Robert: I think that she can decide for herself where to find inspiration.

Why is this so important to you? What I don't get, is why you feel the need to talk about this.

T : Well, why do you need to speak? What is this point of yours, that you feel this great need to make?

Robert: Remember when you asked me, what if my faith was mistaken? Well, I hate to be the one to bring it to your attention, but we are all going to die. Our friend was a fine man. He's still dead, regardless of what he did and what he stood for. Nothing any of us do is going to prevent death from eventually happening, and if I'm wrong, I die anyway. It's a trip I know I'm going to eventually take...

T : And you feel that people shouldn't be upsetting themselves about something they can't change ....

Robert: Exactly.

T : And you've done so with considerable exasperation, and passion, indicating that you've attached some degree of importance to the acceptance of your point of view on this.

Robert: Hey, I'm a passionate guy. It's how I am.

T : And you passionately believe in caring about the happiness and well being of those around you, and you don't want to see them (bleep!) with their own heads, as you put it, once.

Robert: Good, you're starting to get a clue, here.

T : People can really upset themselves badly, so it's really important that they stop doing this to themselves, as far as you're concerned.

Robert: Are you awake yet? Duh. I think you've beaten the point to death enough.

T : Sorry, I just tend to be a little obsessive on the subject of being clear on what people are saying. So, it is important to you, that people learn not to do this.

Robert: Yes, stupid, it is important to me that people learn not to do this to themselves.

T : I see. So, it is important to you, that people see the truth of what you're saying, here.

Robert: Brilliant deduction. Did you come up with it on your own, or did your therapist help?

T : But it is important to you, that people agree with what you're saying, because you're steering them away from something unhealthy?

Robert: This is getting kind of old ...

T : But, am I understanding you correctly?

Robert: Yes, (bleep!), you're understanding me correctly, and it only took a year ...

T : And you also said that you didn't feel that death was such a horrible thing.

Robert: Wow. You have a memory, AND three whole IQ points, all your own. Your mom must be quite proud.

T : Well, wanting to help people is certainly a worthy goal. But, you know, distrustful person that I am, I still find myself suspecting that you're being less than sincere, in this, and that your death would be a major issue to you. I have even wondered if you were merely an uncaring individual who isn't worth listening to. Having spoken with others, it would seem that I am not alone in this. I must confess, that this has placed a roadblock in the way of our acceptance of your argument. But, perhaps I'm mistaken. If so, I wish you would prove me wrong, and show that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Robert : Only too glad, (bleep!).

T : I am very happy to here that. After all, our small minded distrust has been standing in the way of our seeing the considerable wisdom that may be present in your words, and you've agreed, repeatedly, that this is a very bad thing. A problem whose solution is important to you, by your own exasperated account. Is this not so?

Robert : Yeah, so?

T : Well, then, I must admit that I am confused, because it seems to me that Dennis' widow offered you a perfect opportunity to do just that, after she overheard you a little while back ...

Robert : Now, wait a second, she was overwrought ...

T : And with you so sensitively trying to help her past her pain! But some might think that she was being quite perceptive, despite her sorrow. I remember what she said to you. Some saw it as an outburst, but perhaps it was a challenge to you, to prove the strength of your belief. If you remember, she said

"Why don't you go kill yourself, if you think that death is so (bleep!) cool."

What a provocative notion! What confuses me - and I was hoping that you'd explain your thinking on this to me - was why you chose to not take her up on this challenge. Wouldn't you have resolved all doubt in one stroke, by doing so?

Robert : Huh? Are you out of your (bleep!) mind?

T : What? Are you saying that this was an unreasonable request on her part? Why? You would be headed to a better place, right? And I know you won't give me any feeble line about how you "still had things to do, here". Is it not true, that the victim whose death you dismissed as being unimportant wasn't exactly in his dotage, himself? He was a recently married 26 year old graduate student, and had plenty left to do in his life.

Maybe even more than you, Bob.

If I may, I would like to add a challenge of my own, to that given to you, by the grieving widow who you worked so hard to comfort. My challenge to you is this : that you should live by the law that you would set for others, that each should be consider life to be of little value. Failing this, that you should have the integrity to acknowledge that you weren't sincere, when you argued this position.

This is a matter, not of the golden rule, but of metaphysical consistency. You have argued, not merely that this is what someone SHOULD do, but that this assertion comes as a rational response to what we know of the situation that would confront someone who was deceased, after death. The same argument would apply, mutus mutandis, if one would replace our friend's name, with your own, if it would apply at all.

But if you should change your mind, and courageously take up the widow's challenge, please don't think that you'll have to worry about pain, or the possibility of ending up a vegetable. Our good friend, Dr.Kervorkian, has perfected a machine, that will put you to sleep, without pain, and never fails. Your trip through the gates of paradise, should be as smooth as the drifting of a feather, floating on a breeze. Be sure to say hello to Norman Vincent Peale, when you get there. (*)

Robert: Thanks for your kind thoughts, but I think that I'll go on living, if it's all right with you. I'd like to continue doing so for a good long time.

What exactly would I accomplish by going along with your little request? If I'm not around any more, I can't exactly be there to argue my side when you argue against it.

T : You will stay among us, in order to help convince the rest of us to hold our own lives cheaply? How inspirational, that you would care so deeply about the demise of others.

But quite unnecessary. If you go along with the widow's suggestion, it will blow me right out of the water, in this little debate. My point, right now, is an allegation of a lack of sincerity on your part, and a claim that this lack is being used to mask a lack of compassion for others. If you should inflict that fate on yourself, which you claim to be a matter of no concern for the reasonable, then your sincerity will be proved to the satisfaction of almost all who will hear of this debate. To say nothing of the awesome strength of your convictions, at a time when others would say that the only thing that I had shown signs of, in my argument, had been a fear of the unknown, which you had transcended with ease.

More so, many would say that you died, after I pressured you to do so, in order to defend the integrity of a philosophy allegedly designed to reduce the tragically intense sorrow of others. This would cast me in the role of the villain, who others would shun out of pure distaste. Who would listen to me, or anyone arguing my position, after that? I would be discredited in the eyes of others, and the support for my opposition to your position, with me.

But I'm not going to lie awake nights, in fear of this happening.

Robert: While I, on the other hand, would be viewed as the nutcase who blew his brains out on request. How very persuasive.

T : It would depend on how you explained your actions to those around you, before you took it, and there is no denying that you can be most articulate.

As we've already mentioned, I would be seen as pure scum.

You, on the other hand, as the one hounded to death, for the sake of his ideals, would be seen as a sort of martyr - and those always seem to inspire followers. Were I, or anyone else, to dare to mock you, at that point, I would be very lucky to escape a lynching.

Robert: Making me a noble crackpot. Wonderful. Self-destruction doesn't play well among the masses you think that I want to appeal to.

T : Really? A number of historians will be stunned to learn this.

Consider the yogis in India, who will stare at the sun until blind. Do they lack disciples, or admirers, arguing in support of the alleged wisdom inspiring their self destruction, on these shores? For each fool who starves himself into a skeleton, lying on a bed of nails, are there not ten more fools ready to take his place?

Consider the young man, or woman, who rushes off to the recruiter's office and dies in battle. How do others respond, when the point of the battle that this young life was squandered in, is asked for? In practice, is it even considered socially acceptable to ask?

Have you ever heard of someone burning himself to death in protest against something, or losing his life in a hunger strike? Are the merits of his case ever considered terribly relevant by the great mass of the people afterwards, or do most people side with him, posthumously, in a spirit of horror and shame, whether the latter was justified or not?

The act of sacrificing one's life for one's cause, has historically been shown such respect in this society, that the pointlessness of the cause sacrificed for has not only never been considered an issue worth raising, but it has not even been considered an issue permissible to raise.

Who would be my opponent in this debate, were you to cast away your life without fear in order to show others that such fear was unnecessary? Your martyrdom in the eyes of those nearby, in a society that has no history of questioning the needfulness of such a tragedy, or the prudence of the acceptance of needless hardship. In your eternal silence, you would become an opponent whom I could not hope to defeat, or even escape out from under the shadow of.

But I do not see victory in your cause's future.

Robert: I don't imagine that you would. But, what if I don't feel like doing as asked? How would that be hurting my cause? Clearly, my active presence in it is going to do it good.

T : If you believe in what you are saying, to do as suggested would be a simple matter. The only thing that you would lose, your life, would be something of no importance to you. What could I possibly have come back with, at that point? Your point of view will have gained adherents, something that matters to you, at least to a degree. The choice would be clear.

As it is, but, I suspect, not in that way.

Now, any thinking person witnessing this exchange will see this, and more importantly, will see that you couldn't help but see this. In refraining from winning your case, in this dispute, in a manner that would involve no real loss to you (should your side be an honest one), you will have acted in a manner incompatible with the point of view you would wish us to believe you hold - losing your case in the process. In fact, you will have elected to lose a case, that you put some effort into winning, before losing a life that you claimed to put no value on - and all who care to look, will be able to see that this is the choice you have made - making the depth of your hypocrisy clear to all.

Robert: I think that you're engaging in circular reasoning, here. First, you indicate that my lack of action, indicates that I will be choosing to lose my case. Then, you say that my decision to lose my case, indicates a lack of effort. Around and around, eh?

T : Not quite. At each point, as I show, there is both a predictable reaction, and the recognition on the part of the person reacting that his reaction could have been anticipated. There is then a natural reaction to that recognition, as the outlook of the one reacting evolves, from step to step. This only seems circular, if one expects the outlook of the one reacting to materialise in one instantaneous impulse. Such need not occur, and indeed will not occur, except among the extraordinarily rash.


Now, to get back to the subject at hand ...

I would place heavy odds that you won't act on my suggestion. In fact, given the social consequences if you do, I already have. But, sensibly, and not as a matter of bravado, I can do this without fear, because I've known people like you - more than a few.

You're a hypocrite. It isn't that you don't think that death is a bad thing. Applied to yourself, you clearly think that it is. You merely don't think that its a bad thing WHEN IT HAPPENS TO SOMEONE ELSE.


Let us consider what you have already said.

What would be inexplicable, if you were sincere, and not simply trying to say something fashionably outrageous, is that on one hand, you asserted before that you would prefer a long life, indicating that you see value in your own existence, and then you say that it wouldn't matter, if you ceased to be. This is a contradiction.

Thing "A" can't be better than thing "B", without thing "B" being not as good as thing "A". You can't have it both ways. In at least one case, you must be saying something you don't mean. Your actions make it clear which.


I have taken people like you to task before, as, morally, one must. When I have criticised their basic lack of human compassion, I've heard the argument, "It isn't that they are any less caring, it's simply that they see things differently". When the days have passed, and you still draw breath, let the rest of us lay that line to rest. At that point, your insincerity on this particular issue will have become established fact.

Robert: I think that you're missing a point, here.

Yes, I am comfortable with my faith in what happens after I die. Now, does this mean I'm going to merrily jump off a cliff or use Dr.Kevorkian's machine? No, because my faith also prohibits suicide as the one unforgivable "sin". Pain in dying is irrelevant to the belief. It's the intent of suicide that makes it a sin.

T : But you're wrong, Robert. Your religion praises suicide all of the time, just so long as it's done indirectly, in the name of a "good cause".

Hunger strikers, who starve to death in protest of a policy that goes unchanged, are praised as martyrs. People who make a habit of doing things like plunging into burning buildings to pull people out, though they make their own deaths near certainties by taking such risks habitually, are praised as heroes. Missionaries who go into lands where proslytizing is punishable by death, knowing with near certainty that they will be martyred, are called the truest servants of God. There is even a hymn in praise of this sort of thing, sung in many churches. Remember the line, Robert?

"What greater love hath any man, than to lay down his life for a friend".

Your own lord is portrayed, in your own faith's scriptures, as electing to go into a place where he knows he will be captured, knowing full well that this capture will lead to his death, "a death that He freely accepted".

If deliberately choosing a course of action that will predictably lead to one's death is not suicide, then what does the word mean? Do you imagine that you can change the moral complexion of an act, by commiting it in a roundabout fashion, then declining to be open about what it is that one has done? Do you imagine yourself to be so cunning, that you can put one over on God?

But if you do not wish to stick your head in an oven, there are many perfectly respectable ways of ending your life. You could

1. Take up rock climbing, or some other dangerous hobby, and be praised for your "guts", a nicer way of saying courage without purpose, ie. foolhardiness. I know of no mainline Christian denomination that has objected to recreational risk taking. Sooner or later, probably sooner if you get too ambitious too quickly, your luck runs out. It needn't even take up a lot of your time.
   
   But then again, if you place no value on your life, taken in total, then how could you place any value on a portion of it? Why would your time be of value to you?
   
   Let us note that this sort of folly wins admiration in our society, and people place greater stock in the opinions of those they admire. "Heroes", like you would become, are listened to, and the "cowards" who question their actions scorned, and not listened to - especially should they do so after the "heroes" have fallen.



2. There are tyrants out there, waiting to to be overthrown. If you are so without fear, why don't you go join a resistance movement?



3. Like I mentioned, you could go preach your gospel - in Iran, or Lebanon, or especially Afghanistan. A little more love would make these places much happier places to be.



4. You could join the military, or the police or one of our nation's intelligence gathering agencies, and give your life in the line of duty, with near certainty, merely by always being eager to volunteer for the dangerous missions that noone else wants. This is generally considered a sign of "nobility".

The possibilities go on and on. So, don't think that your faith is standing between you and the death that you say that you don't object to. At most, it calls on you to be subtle in the way that you would seek it. Nor may you argue that the intention behind the seeking will render it "sinful" in the eyes of your church, for in the last three cases, the altruism that you would be exercising is a value that almost all Christian denominations praise.


But you've left an important question unanswered.

If life itself is of no value, then why does the all just God object to its destruction, and become so vindictive when others ignore His objections?

Robert: Because life provides us with an opportunity to earn our place in heaven.

T : Which would contradict the notion that life was without value, wouldn't it?

But, how could life provide such an opportunity? By allowing us to better the lives of those around us? But wouldn't those lives be as without value as our own? How much virtue could accrue, from performing an act that would accomplish nothing of value?

Robert: I'll leave it up to God, to answer that one, when it pleases Him. But, haven't we gone off on a tangent, here?

T : Maybe. Fine, let's get back to the main issue.

If you decline to act in a fashion that indicates that you really believe in what you are saying, meaning that you are making inflammatory and insincere remarks just to gain attention, then, each of us can easily see how best to deal with you, without benefit of further discussion. Namely, to take no further notice of you. What is to be gained by doing otherwise?

So, do it. Prove that you really mean what you are saying, and aren't simply a hypocritical (bleep!), who has indulged in some weak philosophising in order to dignify his lack of basic human compassion, as if it were common sense.

Robert: Persistent (bleep!), aren't you? Now look, (bleep!) ...

T : Is that the sound of a dog barking? It surely can't be Robert's voice. Sincere fellow that he is, he can't possibly have had any difficulty with meeting my little challenge.

Robert, if you have anything more to say, know that your words will be wasted, because I will not be listening. If you send me e-mail, as seems to be your favorite means of conversing, expect that your letter will be eaten by my mailfilter. Given that dev/null is on, I won't even hear the burps as the letter slides down to the oblivion, that I hope will soon be greeting you with open arms and an empty gaze. You will be a fine addition to my killfile. Bye, now. I have no time for hypocrites. Truth will not come from conversing with them, and they're too untrustworthy to share the comforts of friendship with.

Robert: EXCUSE ME ....

T : SHHHHHHH ! ......... (Robert walks off)

continue

(*) author of "The Power of Positive Thinking"