Critics of ambivalence see it as something of inherent disvalue: a sign of poorly functioning agency. Instead, this chapter challenges this assumption, outlining the potential benefits of ambivalence for well-functioning agency, using criteria of rationality, agential effectiveness, autonomy, and authenticity. Furthermore, by exploring the interplay between philosophical debates on ambivalence and psychological research on suicide, the chapter shows how insights from each field can inform the ot…
Read moreCritics of ambivalence see it as something of inherent disvalue: a sign of poorly functioning agency. Instead, this chapter challenges this assumption, outlining the potential benefits of ambivalence for well-functioning agency, using criteria of rationality, agential effectiveness, autonomy, and authenticity. Furthermore, by exploring the interplay between philosophical debates on ambivalence and psychological research on suicide, the chapter shows how insights from each field can inform the other. For example, it follows that fostering ambivalence, rather than eliminating it, can sometimes support more effective suicide interventions, while ambivalence alone should not be seen as a marker of deficient agency and thus as justification for paternalistic measures.