Let's say, hypothetically, there was a girl named Becky who, hypothetically, wants to die. Becky doesn't exist, but I don't feel like diving into existentialism at this time.
Anyways, her want to die doesn't stem from depression or the bees in her bonnet that gives her a coronary attack every time a pin drops. It's all caused by a mixture of peer pressure and social anxiety. Not the typical "i-am-a-good-kiddo-i-listened-to-DARE-in-school", but the one where you want to give in, you're just afraid of how your body/mind would react to it. This makes Becky afraid, because her aspirations to go to a film school might be dashed if she ends up becoming an alcoholic before Freshman year. However, it only seems right to alleviate stress, pee on the beehive and set aflame the tree that housed it.
In a similar, anecdotal situation, a lapse of judgment yesterday almost had me accepting non prescribed pills from a castmate before the spring play. I wasn't really stressing out or sad, just confused and uncertain about everything I was feeling at that moment. The confusion led to a period of resignation, however, so I wasn't sweating bullets trying to make a decision on how or if I would start a pill addiction.
In the cases of mine and Becky's, what would be the most just approach to take? What would make it right? (Before you ask, a friend told me that taking the medication was a terrible idea, so I never went through with it.)
The Trolley Problem, an ethical question made by British philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967, is applicable to almost every situation, although easily distorted. There's a trolley going full speed and can't stop. For some crazy reason, there are five people on the rails and one on the siding. You are right by a lever that could pull the trolley onto a siding, avoiding the five people but consequently killing the one. What morals would you base your decision off of? Would you pull the lever for the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people (utilitarianism) or because you aren't going out of your way to harm somebody (Thomas Aquinas' Double Effect Theory)? If you wouldn't, would the reason be that you don't weigh instinct over duty (deontology) or there's no reason to care because life is meaningless (Nihilism and any of its offshoots)?
Long story short, morality is gross, and that is an understatement.
Becky would consider a few reasons to make her decision; would the intention of ridding all her anxiety be just, or could she only qualify the situation once she is completely removed from it? She could have been going through an absolutely devastating day, so anything to affect her serotonin would be reasonable.
If we're being honest, nothing can be defined as right. While the idea of consequentialism and utilitarianism are most popular among the moral consensus, that cannot be the objective definition. It's all situational, a hodgepodge of circumstances at the current moment could and should be the only thing that influence you. There's no reason to be a slave to one concept when you can switch it up all the time. It's like an open relationship or going to Swinger parties.
Realize that who you are isn't an idea, who you are is a human. Existence precedes essence, as Jean Paul-Sartre would say when he was busy trying to get rid of consent laws in France, and if you didn't exist, you wouldn't be in these kinds of situations. Live life free, be genuine, attach a loving attitude to everything.
Everyone is made up of influences, and if those influences pressure you into doing something, maybe it'll be for the better.
Unless it's heroin or mass murder.