Why is suicide considered morally wrong if a person is genuinely competent and autonomous?
I'm asking this as a philosophical question about autonomy and consent.
We generally respect a competent adult's right to make decisions about their own body, even when those decisions can result in death. Someone can refuse chemotherapy, blood transfusions, or other life saving treatment, and we usually respect that choice.
So why is intentionally choosing death treated differently?
I understand that suicidal decisions are often influenced by depression, psychosis, trauma, temporary crises, or impaired judgment. In those cases, intervention seems more justified because autonomy may be compromised.
But what about a hypothetical person who is sober, mentally competent, uncoerced, understands the consequences, has considered the decision for years, and consistently wants to die? What gives society the moral authority to override their decision simply because the decision is to die?If human life has value independent of what the individual wants, what is the philosophical basis for that value? And if autonomy matters, where exactly should the line be drawn between protecting someone from an impaired decision and paternalistically forcing a competent person to remain alive?
I'm not arguing that suicide or assisted suicide should necessarily be legal. I'm asking what the strongest argument against it actually is.