I have been reading posts on this site for several weeks now and decided to throw my hat into the ring today. I find this question to be rather compelling because it strikes at the heart of all existence. I appreciate the route of an existentialist for this issue.

You have removed the potential of godly retribution and have alleviated the individual of any guilt that might be associated with such a loss. This looks much like the toiling of Sartre and Camus in the middle of the last century. In the end, the universe is "absurdity" itself. Sartre states in Being and Nothingness that the mild nausea we feel when we recognize that no overall plan exists for us to be absurdity. There is no plan; there is nothing stopping us from suicide; we are as pointless as a chunk of stone.

Initially, Camus agrees with Sartre as demonstrated in L'etranger. The main character kills a man to see how it feels and is executed for his crime. He is mainly indifferent throughout. However, he revisits the issue in La Peste. A plague strikes, and a town must band together to survive. Why would one try to assist others to survive if all were "absurdity"? We instinctively attempt to help others in trouble. We sympathize with their plight. We take on their emotional state due to our sympathy. So, even though the universe is absurd, we are hardwired to appreciate doing what is good for others.

Camus leans heavily on Hume and Humean Humanism to mask absurdity. (I know the alliteration makes me a little ill too.) We construct value because we are in society. Others are wired to worry about us, and we are wired to worry about them. So, in a vacuum, the person should commit suicide. As soon as society is introduced, one is compelled to stay alive. Regardless of whether one believes it, someone would mourn the loss of our unhappy subject, perhaps a sister or a cousin. Our subject should reflect on how the suicide would affect others and realize it would cause pain. Self-actualized humans would prefer to avoid causing pain; therefore, suicide is not an option.

Oh yeah, after he wrote La Peste, Camus committed suicide be getting drunk, writing a letter to Sartre, and driving into a telephone pole. I realize that might take some of the luster from my view, but better to face it than have another do so.

What does X want?

I object to the "ripple effect" because of the implicit assumption that X's life will have an overall positive effect and X's death will have an overall negative effect. The converse could be true.

However, feel free to address the effects of additional conditions on X as long as you address both possibilities: If A then... If not A then...

Ask X.

It's up to 'X'. 'X' may not want to do anything rash because he/she may be able to find a reason to live some time later. At the same time, NO ONE should make that decision for 'X'; it's X's right to chose if he/she wants to live or die. Not enjoying life and not having goals is usually not a permanent situation nor is it impossible to overcome.

'X' would be throwing away his/her only life just because things aren't going so well for the time... I've been in that position before, and I'm certainly glad to have stuck it out. I may not have a whole lot of effect on society, but I've gone from having all 4 of those qualities to only having one of them (no dependents) by making conscious efforts to do so (buying a house, setting goals, finding reasons to live, experimenting with new hobbies to find ways to enjoy life, etc). If one can't overcome those problems on their own, there are plenty of professionals that can help with it.

As Richard Dawkins stated, "...this is the only life you're going to get. It's a precious life. It's a beautiful life. It's something that we should live to the full, to the end of our days..."