First matter: is it really a harm? Can you say with perfect certainty, that you caused the suffering and agony of your loved ones? I definitely did not consider this before and assumed, as I initially did with the Doomsday Button (which I shall write about soon, don't worry), that non-suffering can cancel out suffering; that an overall reduction in suffering can make a harm not a harm. In no way could this be true: this is due to that 'Do no harm' standard I mentioned briefly at the start of this entry (I will show later on however that it is by no means unbreakable). Simply put, humans do not like doing things against their morality. This goes against certain fundamental drives, and thus is a very difficult thing to do - so few, in fact, do. Therefore, if such a principle existed, unless a specific example could be provided where suffering can be cancelled out by overall less suffering**, this would wreck the idea that an overall utility increase could provide an incentive to commit suicide, because the initial act of creating suffering would cause a harm, and that is something you cannot do under those circumstances. And it does exist.
Think about attacking someone for little reason. Feel as if you would not ever be able to, or at least, would need to be forced to? That's the 'Do no harm' principle. As a being striving for maximum utility, you can't do bad things without causing your own suffering***. And the goal of not suffering because of your morality (EMPATHY NOT EQUALS MORALITY) is just your morality as a whole.
So therefore, if committing suicide with loved ones still hanging on were a harm, we could not perform said action (unless there were a loophole of some sort - I'll get to that). So I ask again, is it a harm? The essential flaw in saying that you did not directly cause your loved ones' suffering is akin to saying that creating new people isn't directly causing them to suffer. Both are still moral harms, and for antinatalism to hold true, this must also hold true. Which means I was seriously misguided and, moreover wrong, about this loophole. But not about suicide being an okay to do in some circumstances (barring loners in which suicide is always permissible).
You see, there IS a get out of jail free card, of sorts, to 'Do no harm'. Rights can cancel out harm. If you stop a serial killer from killing, they may begin to suffer from the need to kill more people (it may be something of a compulsion). You are causing harm. But you also caused no one to be killed - their rights to live were not violated. This SHOULD not be correct by logic alone, but moral intuition says it actually is (note this: moral intuition comes first and foremost, whenever it can't answer a question, I use logic to fill the gaps). The same goes for self-defence - this causes suffering, but the right to not be harmed yourself means that it is null and void to state that it is wrong to retaliate.
Are there rights at play here, then? Is there some sort of right to choose whether one lives or dies? Well consider this: a hypothetical elderly person is a burden to their family. Should they kill themselves even if they don’t want to? Moral intuition says no, even though their life is a harm to those around them, because if they did not live others would not suffer. And I am pretty sure that the reverse therefore must also apply to suicide, since this implies we have a right to choose whether we live or die.
So you can kill yourself without regard as to your family and friends so long as you believe you have the right to choose whether you yourself live or die - living for others is the same thing as denying your freedom of choice in this matter. But don't rush off too soon, there, because there are still many more barriers one must cross before deciding. As for me, I find that my own personal need to not make my parents sad stops me from doing it. But there are more factors than that. No suicide method has a 100% success rate, there is, as Shadow said recently, an extreme biological wall between us and death (we literally cannot just take the plunge), and there are serious problems with trying to attain methods to commit suicide - this is due to legislation and safety regulations etc.
Happy 100 posts everybody, woo! What a fitting post, right?
I'd also like to ask: Where is everyone? What happened to all the chatroom frequenters? Diabasis seems dead, no trace of CM, or Schopy or Gottaname or Ben (there are countless others as well, but I've purposelessly left your names out so as to trick you into going onto the chat and telling me how much of an ass I am for doing so).
I apologise for the drop in writing quality - I'm still experimenting a bit. Writing with an essay plan seems to give me a lot better ideas, but it takes away my, uh, bounciness in language, and I lose the ability to not sound like a monotone robotic suffer-bot, which in reality, I actually am.
*There are more posts of that nature in my Blog Overview. Also, note that this is not the case for Loner Suicide - I made a comment mentioning this on Karl's blog.
**There is actually a rather specific example that goes AGAINST this. Think colosseum and people dying for entertainment. People in the audience suffer less, perhaps overriding the suffering of those participating. But this is intuitively a moral wrong, and hence does not conform to our morality.
***I am using some new terminology here. I came to something of a revelation recently, in a comment I posted. I shall post it in full soon, but for those who cannot wait, here it is.