I have amended the argument very slightly, in red text, to hopefully make it a bit better by clearly establishing Hamlet's question (suicide) as a moral question with a moral answer. Let me know what you think. I think all the premises are pretty solid and logically follow from each other...
1) Behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts) exist.
2) Volition supersedes such behavioral inclinations/disinclinations (instincts).
3) Given #1 and #2, one can conclude that agency is involved.
4) Mankind can make moral decisions, can discern right from wrong, and can be held accountable for said moral decisions (regardless of whether one believes morality is subjective or objective because both beliefs equally assert that morality exists).
5) Given #4, one can conclude that mankind are moral agents.
6) Moral issues are those actions which have the potential to help or harm others or ourselves.
7) Given #5 and #6, one can conclude that Hamlet's Question is a moral question with a moral answer.
8) Hamlet's Question, according to biological science, receives a universal and objective answer in and by the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.
9) Suicide contradicts the very nature of all living things, which is self-preservation.
10) Given #7, #8, and #9, one can conclude that the absolute and objective moral answer to Hamlet's Question is "to be" and the absolute and objective immoral answer to Hamlet's Question is "not to be".
Please note that I got bored with the sniping, disingenuousness and insults between sides and stopped skimming around post 500, so if I missed something and the below has been addressed, please just point me to the post.
From #300, edited somewhat for brevity.
4) Man can make moral decisions, can discern right from wrong, and be held accountable for said decisions.
6) Moral issues are those actions which have the potential to help or harm others or ourselves.
8) “to be” vs. “not to be” according to biological science, receives a universal and objective answer because all living things naturally seek self-preservation.
9) Suicide goes against the above (assertion).
10) The absolute and objective answer to the question of whether suicide is moral or amoral is therefore IMMORAL.
Comments:
4) Only included this one to point out that unless there is a God, it’s not a guaranteed that anyone will hold someone accountable for committing suicide. The death may negatively impact others, but a dead person cannot be “held accountable” by anyone for the act of suicide.
6) The definition of help/harm given in this step become important in the response to 10) below.
8) Included for completeness of flow and to point out that instincts are obviously not morals. Animals and plants don’t have morals. I therefore don’t believe that self-preservation necessarily counts as a “moral”, but this isn’t my main objection to the Hamlet thesis on the morality of suicide.
10) Stated conclusion : Suicide is absolutely and objectively immoral.
Don’t agree at all. Without a God that has declared that suicide is an absolute sin (thou shalt not kill), suicide is not necessarily immoral or even wrong. There are cases (though relatively few) where suicide is not wrong or immoral except in the opinion of someone who is making that personal judgement.
Take the case of someone who is suffering a slow, painful death via a malady that will provide nothing but ever increasing pain until the person finally dies. In this case suicide is the instinct of pain avoidance overtaking the instinct for self-preservation.
The Christian might say that the individual suffering in this way must continue to suffer until God gets around to providing death to end it. I say any God that would require such suffering as some sort of pre-condition for some reward is itself very cruel and thus immoral.
To me, this person is helping themselves by suicide. (See 6, above)
