Really Extreme Altruism

One thing to note is that the man would probably harm, not help, his chosen charity (in expectation).

If it was thought that the charity had encouraged the "really extreme altruism", or if it was simply thought that the charity was the sort of thing that fanatics like that liked, the charity would have serious problems attracting others' work or donations, since most people fear fanatical and suicidal mental states. It would need to refuse the money, and refusing the money wouldn't be enough to prevent serious damage.

Shame? Is that the issue? Shame sounds like something that he can't feel because he's dead but that his relatives could feel regarding him because his actions indicate/are their lack of selective fitness. His actions aren't generally admirable because human preferences aren't set up to admire that sort of altruism.
His actions are generally "good" in that they lead to a better rank order world by his criteria than non-action would, but are probably sub-optimal because at the cost of his life he can probably produce a better world rank-ordering (I certainly hope he managed to at least donate all his organs, but unless the recipients are radical altruists too he's still probably nowhere near optimal)

The man has done nothing shameful: (a) his life is his own; and (b) the insurance company bet, with its eyes open, that sufficient suicide-intenders would back down from their plans within two years that the policies would still be profitable. It lost its bet, but it was a reasonable bet.

The man has done nothing admirable, either; he has taken money from the shareholders of the insurance company, and given it to charity. Presumably this is something the shareholders could have done themselves, if they chose to. So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do. Even though he did this through "voluntary" means.

However, I can see that if you're of the opinion that it's a good thing to take money from shareholders (who presumably are wealthier than average) and use it to save lives, then I can see how you would think this to be an admirable act.

You could also argue that the insurance company isn't stupid: it may have sold a thousand policies to intended-suiciders, and this was the only one who went through with it. In that case, the insurance company made a profit, and this man actually had a 99.9% probability of being one of the mind-changers. Unless he had strong reason to believe that he'd be the exception, he should have realized that there was a large probability, that, like the others, he was irrationally believing that his probability was higher than 0.1%.

What he should have done was contingently committed to selling his organs on the black market before committing suicide. Then, there would have been a net benefit to his death, instead of it being zero-sum, and his actions would have been admirable.

I think this post would count as a public statement that would invalidate your life insurance policy upon suicide. Insurance companies are in the business of not actually paying out their benefits.

However, I think we could do some advocacy related to this on the usenet hardcore suicide newsgroups. We might convince some people to delay their suicides long enough to not actually kill themselves, as this meme sounds different than most other memes trying to convince truly suicidal people to not do it.

I am not sure I can be rational about this at all, because I find suicide repulsive. Yet my society admires the bravery of a soldier who, say, throws himself on a grenade so that it will not kill the others in his dugout. I might see a tincture of dishonesty in the man's actions, and yet he enters a contract, with a free contracting party, and performs his part of the contract.

So. Something to practice Rationality on. To consider the value of an emotional response. Thank you. I am afraid, I still have the emotional response, shameful. I cannot, now, see it as admirable.

Why does it matter if the man is admired or shamed?

Do generic charities accept and process suicide insurance payments or estates?

Are you planning to do this?

Note the recent movie Seven Pounds.

Admirable, presuming that he expects the lives saved to be happy ones.

I'll just come out and say that - if we're allowed to ignore poorly foreseen consequences like insurance premiums going up - then yes, the action is admirable.

Roko: "If I knew someone was capable of this, I wouldn't want them as a friend or partner."

All the more reason for the man to go through with it, since he's so unappreciated and unwelcome.

Marshall: "He needs [...] a real problem to work with."

People dying preventable deaths is not a real problem?

I like this post, because it nails down my moral preferences quite nicely. I would not, under any circumstances do this. What does that tell me about my goals in life? It tells me that I place a very high priority upon my continued existence, and that even the dnation of £10^6 to a very worthy charity, which might save a thousand lives is not worth dying for.

A significant recurring theme in the comments is that the man is essentially forcing a redistribution of wealth.

Speaking for myself, I have no in-principle problem with that. I broadly support capitalism because it is probably the system that gives the best overall result. But I'm perfectly happy to support redistribution if the benefits genuinely outweigh the costs.

"So from a libertarian standpoint, this is not an admirable act -- he forced the shareholders to do something they didn't want to do."

But he also saved many people from having to do something they didn't want to do, namely, die. The balance is still in his favour: he chooses the lesser evil.

Would a middle ground option such as "permissible but not morally required" (i.e. neither admirable nor shameful) be valid?

Simple answer: Is the charity going to do more benefit with that money than he caused his family and friends? If so, then his actions were at least a net positive from a utilitarian standpoint. It doesn't necessarily follow that it was the best action, though. Could he have raised a comparable amount of money on his own to help people with, without resorting to killing himself? If so, then I am more inclined to believe that he simply had decided to kill himself, and took advantage of it in order to try to cause some benefit for the world, which I suppose I can give (limited) support to.

I would be concerned with the charity refusing to take 'blood money', or getting bad press if it does so.

Offering insuring against sucicide seems pretty stupid to me. Like offering insurance against someone burning their own house down. So, presumably, this story is fictional.

This is a sad tale. Why invent such a sad tale? Such tales pollute and can infect.

The man in the story is obvioulsy ill. He had two years to get better, but didn't make it. The story gives no reason to make a moral judgement. It is just the spinning of rationalist wheels - signifying nothing. The storytelling on the other hand is a shameful and irresponsible act.