Why Smart People Suicide
- Thread starter infoterror
- Start date
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Justin S. said:
I think that is a fair post by 10293847. I would rather do the garbage job than be a doctor personally. I won't bore you with my reasons for this. And Infoterror thinks I'm intelligent:Smug:
Justin, if you are made a moderator would you be deleting comments like that made by 10293847? Or this one for that matter?
In a world of high intellects there would be no McDonalds. The whole culture would be unrecognisable from that of the present day. Cleaning could be done by geniuses with an obsessive compulsive disorder regarding hygene and order. They would get pleasure from it
No, seriously, all these things would be sorted out without resorting to enslavement of inferiors. (Maybe a rota where everyone had to do some of the jobs no one likes doing).
Norsemaiden said:I think that is a fair post by 10293847. I would rather do the garbage job than be a doctor personally. I won't bore you with my reasons for this. And Infoterror thinks I'm intelligent:Smug:
Justin, if you are made a moderator would you be deleting comments like that made by 10293847? Or this one for that matter?
In a world of high intellects there would be no McDonalds. The whole culture would be unrecognisable from that of the present day. Cleaning could be done by geniuses with an obsessive compulsive disorder regarding hygene and order. They would get pleasure from it
No, seriously, all these things would be sorted out without resorting to enslavement of inferiors. (Maybe a rota where everyone had to do some of the jobs no one likes doing).
This could only work on an extremely small scale. Current population levels in themselves preclude anything like this from ever taking form, even in the enormously unlikely event of a significant political overhaul, or the "collapse of the liberal democratic order" and whatnot.
I don't think people recognize how fortunate they are to live within a society which is so exploitative, while being in a position to reap the benefits of that exploitation. Supposing that the Western train is indeed about to go off a cliff, shouldn't we be thankful that many of us are able to ride to our doom in the luxury car?
10293847 said:
I assume most intelligent and smart persons would see through the "functionality" and "contribution" to society offerred to them by deep frying french fries or sweeping floors.
Has anyone read Foucault's Madness and Civilization? He has an excellent chapter on how labor, became not only a means of economic profit, but also a moral and religious end in the 18th century with the beginnings of the industrial revolution. In essence, labor, which was once seen as just what it is--work, not in anyway lauded as being something higher, or moral (30% of the population of Paris in the 16th century, begged for food, and ones lot in life, was seen pre-ordained by God's grace; labor meant nothing--thus, it as considered moral to beg and not to work). Yet with the beginnings of industrial revolution, the poor were put in workhouses throughout Europe, as work was then seen as something intrinsically moral and thus took on a religious quality as well.
My point being, is that your inference that labor--in whatever form--is somehow a beneficial functional purpose, is a recent societal construct of the industrial revolution and the profit-seeking middle class.
Justin S.
Member
10293847 said:
Care to re-examine comments like, "...functionality is the only thing that is important"?
Simple inquiry will shoot this down. Im not going to do it for you.
Its rude to be disingenuous with "questioning".
Justin S.
Member
A Dying Breed said:
If you're concerned with value systems and ideals or even having a decent future for the human race, then there's nothing noble about "being able to ride to your doom in a luxury car". The car is a form of decoration and distraction which merely masks the fact that it's riding to a destructive end. This just seems like a defense of hedonism and an excuse for irresponsibility: it's like saying "this system is destructive and doesn't work in the long term, but let's just collect as many pleasurable items and experiences as we can before time runs out instead of trying to eliminate the destructive elements".
Omnis_Sathanas said:
I never said it was noble. But what is? Fighting the system? What is anyone here doing to fight it? I see a lot of talk about the impending apocalypse, and no talk about how to avert it, which seems to suggest that it cannot in fact be averted. In this case, I fail to see how complaints coupled with inertia are morally superior to enjoying the ride to armageddon to whatever extent possible. Tell me how to go about eliminating these destructive elements, and I'll get right on it.
no country for old wainds
Active Member
- Nov 23, 2002
- 26,696
- 9,669
- 113
If I could just step in here and offer a different perspective: My personal experience suggests to me that whilst the correlation between intelligence and likelihood of suicide can be a positive one, often the exact opposite is true as well. The happiest people I know are almost uniformly the most intelligent, possibly because said intelligence allows them to better rationalise their experiences and/or turn them into something positive. I say "almost" uniformly because one person close to me is exactly the opposite, and is the perfect example of exactly what you describe.
I suppose the aim of this post is to suggest that whilst intelligence can be a curse with regards to pursuing an enjoyable life, it can often be a blessing too, and that perhaps there's a more fundamental mental trait here that determines which way a person of intelligence may swing (if any).
I suppose the aim of this post is to suggest that whilst intelligence can be a curse with regards to pursuing an enjoyable life, it can often be a blessing too, and that perhaps there's a more fundamental mental trait here that determines which way a person of intelligence may swing (if any).
speed said:
The example isn't what is important here. Let me be direct: If we are to imagine a society of all high-intellects, even then will a hierarchy create itself within these intellects. Humans will naturally create their own caste system because the cream (leaders) always rise to the top.
NOT ALL HUMANS ARE EQUAL: Even if they are of the same race and intellect. You can't take the human element out of the equation. Some people simple have "it", while others don't. Everyone can't be President. There need to be attorney generals, secretaries of state, governers, senators, mayors, etc. Each need to function to make the machine work.
How does a society function with each person claiming the top spot? I'll make it easy for you: It doesn't.
Justin S. said:
Just curious: Do you always evade questions by assuming obviousness?
How bout you amuse me with this simple inquiry.
Any further questions you may have? Read my last post.
sajien
Member
- Oct 15, 2004
- 32
- 0
- 6
I strongly agree with the atricle. Everyday I deal with complete morons and all they care about is money, material posessions, etc. Everyday that passes I find it harder and there is less and less of a point to life. These people, their minds will never be changed, until its too late. I hate dealing with their ignorance and selfishness everyday. Everyone thinks I am too negative. Everyone says I have mental problems. I am the only one around here who actualy cares about what is happening, and I am the one with mental problems? Our society IS fucked, and I can promise it will only get worse until we all destroy ourselves. I debate everyday if I should continue riding this descending roller coaster. Anyone who says suicde is for stupid people, well you are just another ignorant fool. There is no possible way to change the world. You can wish all you want, but if you use your logic (if you even have much of that) you will realize it is impossible. There are far too many ignorant morons out there with their "opinions". Everyone gets so caught up in having opinions they forget there are facts. I can very easily have a happy life. I could be just like everyone else and buy into our bullshit world views but that would involve me turning into a piece of shit. I also read something about the smart people being all talk and no action. Well, I can assure you I have tried many times. Noone listens because to do the right thing would involve them to be ripped out of their comfortable little lives, and realisticly, people are just too lazy for that. So from all my actions to get people to change their ways, I am the one tossed aside as being mentally ill. So to people who say suicide is for attention whores...go fuck yourselves. There is nothing wrong with suicide. If anything, it should be done more. There are FAR too many people on this planet for life to sustain itself much longer. Everyone is too selfish to fix that problem. Anyone can be replaced. Well..I am done being an idiot.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
sajien said:
Vikings don't believe in suicide unless it is done while fighting the enemy. Vikings aim to die in battle. Their personal ambition is "word fame" and they see this as achieved by doing something significant in one's own life. Moaning that there is nothing you can do and everything is crap in the world is the opposite of this philosophy.
They wouldn't want to hand the world over to the morons by giving up on life.
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
sajien said:
So you agree with me that it is for the weak then if not for the stupid or attention whores?
Think of it differently and maybe you will come to different conclusions.
If you are too weak of a human, to grasp the Idea that you have the gift of life, the opportunity to do what you choose, the opportunity to feel what you choose.
You should listen to the people who care about you. You are fucked as far as I can tell from your post. You visions of the future are grim and therefore your motivation for the future is not there. No one person can change the world, and no person should be concerned about changing the world. If you want your experience to change, Change yourself and your environment will soon follow.
You have been fooled, tricked, duped into believing in the Apathy of our generation. That is the goal of the usless pop, hedonistic lifestyle supported by big business and the media. If youth apathy is successful, they don't have people wanting to change, they have people who will be told how and which ways to feel for the rest of their lives until they take the reigns of life and take them firmly in the hands and guide themselves through life.
If you really cared what is happening with society, if you really really cared, then you would be very motivated to change at least the people and the environments you are in.
You really are a contradiction in and of yourself. If you are not afraid to die, which is #2 on the most common fear list, then why are you afraid to do everything and anything you can to change?
So you either get the change you want or you die. Either way you will get what you want.
The Devil's Steed
Member
Norsemaiden said:
I have to disagree with that. Having experienced clinical depression and talked to others who were currently experiencing it I can say it isn't necessarily resitant to rational thought, nor does a sufferer lose some of the ability to think and act rationally. Of course, if one considers suicide to be inherently irrational (I don't know whether you believe this or not) then we've simply came to an impasse.
The Devil's Steed
Member
Silver Incubus said:
Where did you come up with this idea? Care to give a bit more detail on how that train of thought operates?
derek
Grey Eminence
To paraphrase Hume - "No man ever through away a life worth living".
His "On Suicide" is a great little essay, available online.
In highschool, my Higher philosophy dissertation was on the Bioethics of suicide. I'm gonna copy and paste that (I still have it!) It's outdated now, and I feel slightly ashamed of it, looking back, but generally my views remain the same.
I think I was 15, or thereabouts.
Arguments from Divine Providence
Enter, perhaps the greatest of medieval thinkers, St Thomas Aquinas. The views of Aquinas on suicide were, as his views on most subjects, intrinsically driven by a deep-rooted theistic belief. He believed suicide to be wholly wrong and against the wishes of God:
"It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself... Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself... Life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God... for it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life."
Thomas Aquinas, ‘Summa Theologica’
As the above shows, Aquinas relinquishes all control of his life to God, and believes that suicide violates and destroys our divine ‘duty’ to live our lives, as our lives themselves are Gods gift to us and ending them prematurely is like throwing Gods gift back in his face. Yet the context of the above quote is arbitrary, namely that Aquinas, somewhat blindly, believes God exists, he is all-powerful and all knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent. And as such that view must be kept in the back burner whenever reading the works of such theistic philosophers such as Aquinas, as to realise the bias within his arguments. Yet, despite this I believe Aquinas does present some interesting arguments regarding suicide and its moral standpoint with God. He outlines three arguments upon which he establishes his grounds for opposing suicide and the very nature of such an act:
Argument 1: Natural Law
Aquinas’s first argument came from the direction that suicide disrupts the natural order and is contradictory to the natural life-asserting purpose of human existence. Such a view is somewhat old-fashioned as some modern existentialists argue that the meaning of life, as it were, is to die, thus making such an argument inherently useless. Nevertheless the classical philosophers such as Aristotle supported Aquinas argument of this nature, insofar as they agree suicide disrupts the life-asserting purpose of existence, claiming suicide is:
“Contrary to the rule of life”
Aristotle, ‘Nicomachean Ethics’, Book 5, Chapter 11
His mentor, Plato, also agreed, claiming that suicide only serves to:
“Frustrate the decree of destiny”
Plato, ‘Laws’, book 8, page 873
Argument 2: Impacting Utilitarianism
His second argument supposed that suicide could not be justifiable as it caused greater social harm, than singularly the ending of one life. His argument was that suicide affected many, perhaps the person committing suicide was destined to cure the world of disease, and thus while impacting society it also intervened in fate and hence, Aquinas could not accept it as justifiable. However the concept of fate is a highly debatable one. Perhaps when looking upon theistically driven arguments against suicide, as a morally wrong act, it must be seen that the ideal of fate plays a key role. If fate does not exist then a God cannot be omnipotent and thus the basis for all theistic interpretations of the word God are inherently useless, although not crucial in relation to the suicide argument, such a concept is extremely and perennially interesting when it comes to examining fate and God.
Argument 3: Morally Lamentable
Aquinas argued, finally, that suicide is morally wrong as it can be paralleled to stealing from God. Our lives are the property of our divine creator and we are merely trustees of that designated property. However, I feel I must point out that such an argument is purely theistic; personally I find the idea that my life belongs to a divine creator, whom has entire control over my designated path, inherently insulting. Once again, such an argument only holds water with those whom already believe in God, and his “rules” on suicide are merely a sidetrack to that.
Yet again, I feel that Aquinas argument lacks any real veracity; his assumption that our lives are the property of God is devout of logic and, essentially, a useless assumption. Using such ‘duty based’ ethics to conclude that we owe something to God is, therefore, an unsound, unstable, indemonstrable foundation for any argument against suicide. I feel it important to point out that Aquinas’s argument regarding natural law is yet another example of a bold statement lacking any ironclad logic as it completely negates such deals as freewill (defined by René Descartes as"the ability to do or not do something" -Meditation IV), and which, dare I be so bold, is perhaps the main reason why anyone actually lives life. Following a set route or path takes the excitement away from any situation and would make life mundane, and thus I must disagree wholly with Aquinas on such a view. As such I must, on a personal level, dismiss Aquinas’s arguments and support free will of a person to commit suicide if it is what they wish to do. (As I side-note I find it important to remind ourselves that philosophical discussion, transcending two millennia has not even managed to establish the existence of free-will, as it is not an empirically measurable force, yet, as an individual, I maintain its existence to be crucial to everything I consider to be life.) My views, while not pro-suicide are predominantly pro-free will epitomised by the views of renowned American satirist, PJ O’Rourke:
“There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences”
PJ O’Rourke- ‘Parliament of Whores’
As such, freedom of the mind, body and soul, I believe is of the utmost importance and I must refute, with all my power, the arguments of Aquinas claiming that my life shall be determined by Gods will, and his will alone.
However, Aquinas was not alone in his plight to label suicide as against the wishes of God, modern philosophers such as the great Immanuel Kant have supported his views. Undoubtedly one of modern philosophy’s greatest minds Kant also had a contribution to the discussion of suicide. He, also, contended that suicide was wrong on many grounds. He discussed two common justifications of suicide (that suicide violates the life asserting purpose of existence and also that life is the property of God) and systematically, analysed and destroyed them, within the realms of his logic:
“As soon as we examine suicide from the standpoint of religion we immediately see it in its true light. We have been placed in this world under certain conditions and for specific purposes. But a suicide opposes the purpose of his creator; he arrives in the other world as one who has deserted his post; he must be looked upon as a rebel against God. God is our owner; we are his property; his providence works for our good”
Immanuel Kant, ‘Lectures on Ethics’ pages 153-154
Many argued that freedom dictates that any person may, if they wish, commit suicide, so long as doing so does not directly violate the lives of others. However, Kant claimed that the highest duty to society and ourselves and God is self-preservation and thus suicide surpasses these boundaries, and only serves to “degrade our inner worth”. Kant then leaps to a perhaps unjustifiable and uncharacteristic conclusion, on consequentialist grounds that, if a person can commit suicide then they are, in effect, capable of any crime: “He who does not respect his life even in principle cannot be restrained from the most dreadful vices”. Kant contended, much the same as Aquinas, that suicide permeates and soils upon our duty to God insofar as it deviates from his “plan” for our lives and is also that our lives are indeed the property of our creator. From the arguments highlighted by Kant, one perhaps stands out as being most out rightly flawed and lacking logical grounds, being that suicide negates our duty to God, or in the words of Kant, like “deserting our post”. On a personal plateau, such an argument is useless, if theists claim God is all loving and all powerful then why are we to spend our lives eternally in his servitude or bondage, only to die when his “plans” for us come to their conclusion? It seems, to this writer, to be a contradiction and as one must be pondered upon with a certain amount of scepticism. In relation to our “duty” to Gods plan, David Hume presents powerful and damning arguments to refute such ideals, of which shall be discussed later.
A less well-known, yet still prolific medieval philosopher was Aurelius Augustinus (known to the modern world as St Augustine) whom also supported the views of Aquinas and Kant. In his book “City of God”, (which was originally written to refute the notion that Christianity was to blame for the demise of the Roman empire) Augustine claims that suicide violates the commandment “Thou shall not kill”. However I feel it important to point out that, theists aside, such a commandment is utterly open to interpretation, perhaps it means thou shall not kill animals, or other people, yet on such an atheistic plain, the commandments hold no weight in themselves anyway. Rather hypocritically, St Augustine, although condemning suicide, does feel that divinely ordained wars (so called ‘holy wars’
are justifiable, yet he maintained, rather devoutly, that suicide held no such parallel justification.
Such an argument is almost laughable, although personal views of others must be respected; I find the fact that Augustine supports divinely ordained wars yet condemns suicide totally inconceivable. One must ask the question: who decides whether a war is divinely ordained or not? Not to mention, surely such a decision can surely only be decided by God? (Providing such a creator exists, which in itself cannot be adequately proved, other than to those whom already believe). Intrinsically, the point I am trying to make is: If God is the all-mighty, all-loving creator that theists claim him to be, and that suicide both violates his plan and steals his property then how, on earth, can a single person decide that a war is “divinely ordained”? And if so, does doing so not break the commandment “thou shall not kill” as a matter of course? Bending the “rules” simply because theists decide it is divinely ordained is somewhat duplicitous and hypocritical, it seems to this writer. To the casual observer it makes no sense, and to the analytical mind, it makes even less sense and as such I must refute the arguments presented by Augustine.
Arguments for Suicide
Somewhat characteristically, David Hume refuted and disputed with almost all of philosophy’s great minds not least Aristotle, arguably the greatest analytical and speculative thinker of all time, and described by Dante Alighieri as “The master of them that know”. Hume was, to this writer, THE most important thinker and one of the most eloquent writers, of modern times. Hume, perhaps known best for his attack on causation, has a disposition that requited calm and collect, yet intellectually he was fierce and savagely tore apart many an argument. Including many of the arguments against suicide, of which this essay shall discuss. What was be remembered is that Hume was a great sceptic and spent much time systematically, analysing and destroying all arguments with a theistic basis, and it must be remembered that suicide was merely a facet of such work and perhaps Hume has no moral ground for arguing in support of suicide, nevertheless his work is pivotal when studying suicide.
In 1757 Hume had penned for release a collection of five essays, which were, as a whole, titled “Essays on suicide and the immortality of the soul”. However due to over bearing political pressure Hume was forced to withdraw the works, as a collection, from publication, Singularly demonstrating the scandalous bigotry and outrageous ecclesiastical tyranny that prevailed in Britain at the time. However in 1783, seven years after his death, it was released. In particular this essay shall discuss and analyse his great essay: ‘Of Suicide’. Hume’s main aim was to attack the duty-based ethical arguments submitted by Aquinas and his supporters against suicide, at their foundations and prove that suicide was, as far as God is concerned, NOT morally inexplicable. Hume’s entry point was from the standpoint of duty-based ethics, as championed by the likes of Hugo Grotius. And from such a standpoint, Hume demonstrated, through argument, that we hold no duty to God (contrary to the arguments of Kant and Aquinas) thus leaving the morality of suicide intact. Hume’s views on suicide may be summed up, although, perhaps over simplistically, in the following quote:
“I believe that no man, ever threw away a life, while it was still worth keeping”
David Hume – ‘Of Suicide’
Generically, Hume’s most accessible argument, that refutes the notion of suicide violating Gods “plan” may be shown as follows:
Assuming for a second that God does exist, it is perfectly and empirically reasonable to assume that there are two forms of existential forces, “created” by God. Firstly there is the rule of nature, insofar as explaining naturally occurring events such as tsunamis or hurricanes. Secondly there is the rule of purposeful action, that is to say our ability to act, on purpose, within our world. It can be seen that humans have been given the ability to alter nature, purposely, in order to be happy. From the standpoint of the individual suicide is an act that alters nature in order to achieve happiness and as such committing suicide cannot and does not violate God’s plan.
Essentially, such an argument assumes a theistic standpoint. It takes the theistic ideal that God created man in his own image and determined all the abilities of which man should have. Thus it is logical to assume, on a theistic basis, that God delegated free will to man and as such the above argument is ambiguously valid and logically sound. Such a firm basis allows this writer to whole-heartedly agree. The arguments from divine providence, yet again, suffered from lacking veracity and Hume eloquently tears them apart leaving no option but to see their flaws. Perhaps without a moral conscience, it must be said, however the fact remains Hume has relentlessly demonstrated that suicide has an intact morality in the eyes of God.
Another manifestation of such an argument likens suicide to many other features of life that theists and God seem to have no apparent disdain for, thus making suicide essentially as moral as these other events or actions. Hume firstly states that reality has two main principles, purposeful actions and actions (or forces) of nature:
“Two distinct principles of the material world and animal world continually encroach upon each other, and mutually retard or forward each others operations”
David Hume – ‘Of Suicide’
Quintessentially, Hume was pointing out that man depends on the inanimate forces of nature for hindrance or direction and conversely, the inanimate is directed or hindered by man, essentially that although each principle is opposite, they are mutually co-dependent. Although a hard concept to grasp, it works very well when applied to the problem of suicide, within the boundaries of ending life, within bioethics. A key metaphor, which explains this dialectic, is a river. Changing the course of a river may go against the fate of the river, yet it holds true to the fact that change is inevitable. Retaining this ideal, it seems that Hume was attempting to point out, in a multifarious manner, was that we cannot measure the significance of any instance where the fate of nature has been infringed upon and doing so is merely semantics. Applied to suicide this demonstrates that changing the course of a river cannot be seen as any more morally unjustified than suicide itself. An enlightening concept, this writer believes. Further support of these arguments can be mustered from simple facts, supplied by Hume such as: If ending life prematurely violates the “plan” of God then surely using medicine to prolong life is fundamentally the same thing? Prolonging life alters the natural course of things and, to Hume; differentiation between the two different forms of altering nature (diverting a rivers course and committing suicide) is purely meaningless speculation, as this writer must agree.
The above arguments are perhaps Hume at his analytical and destructive best. He points out that suicide cannot be seen an morally lamentable by God, which was a key argument in Aquinas’s arguments against suicide, while also destroying Aquinas’s argument that suicide violates a duty to God. Systematically Hume destroyed Aquinas’s and Kant’s arguments against suicide, although their demise was almost certain from the flaws within themselves, and like a damaged building, they would have collapsed under the weight of their own preposterous conclusions. Although already very convincing, Hume’s contributions, so far as this essay has shown, on the question of suicide have all but left one area of Aquinas’s argument intact, the part pertaining to suicide and its impact upon society. However Hume cast his powerful mind to this subject too, providing a simple yet devastating argument refuting Aquinas and his conclusions. The following argument, loosely, known as the argument from social reciprocity.
It makes sense to assume that when we die, we do not harm society, we merely cease to do good. It can also be logically assumed that our responsibility to do good is reciprocally related to the benefits we receive from society. When death occurs, the dead person can no longer receive benefits from society, therefore, reciprocally speaking, the dead person no longer has a duty to do good, in order to serve society. As such, suicide cannot be shown to damage society, only to stop doing good.
Such an argument totally refutes the remaining argument submitted by Aquinas in regard to suicide harming society. Hume also argues that no-one can be obliged to do a small good for society at the expense of a great harm to themselves, which in a logical realm does make, to myself a least, make sense. Although not without its flaws, Hume’s arguments are, to myself, infinitely more convincing than that of Aquinas as they have no basis on theistic characters which themselves cannot even be proven to even exist.
Finally, Hume concludes that all suicides must be committed with strong personal reasons. A concept that this writer must agree with, Hume follows with an argument that suggests in order for suicide to be committed we must first over come our natural and inbuilt fear of death. Hume argues that to even contemplate suicide we must have a strong conviction and powerful motives. Such difficulty and fear in facing death can be shown in a quote from Shakespeare’s Cymbeline:
“Against self slaughter there is a prohibition so divine that cravens my weak hand”
William Shakespeare – ‘Cymbeline’, Act 3, scene IV
Having discussed Hume I feel it important to say that, I believe, Hume’s attack on suicide has no moral conscience, and this is perhaps one of its greatest flaws. It seems, instead, to come from his sceptical nature on all things related to God. His systematic movements from area to area, dismantling such arguments pertaining to a divine creator seem to be purely agnostic; it seems to myself, at least. Although he did feel passionately about such subjects, as can be seen and felt from his eloquent prose, suicide, seems to me, to be only a side subject upon which he projected his strong analytical mind.
I feel, at this point, it important to point out that although distasteful of Aquinas’s arguments, I don’t fully agree with the views of Hume, although they are much more convincing. My views must fall slightly short of Hume’s apparent support for suicide, although I have no moral grounds for refuting suicide, I believe that if a person wishes to commit suicide then committing such an act is of their accord. However I must conclude that ending the misery by ending the totality is an illogical concept, however one cannot expect the thoughts in a suicidal persons mind to be logical.
Another philosophical standpoint pertaining to the end of life is that of Seneca. A Roman philosopher, he condoned suicide claiming:
“I will not relinquish old age if it leaves my better part intact. But if it begins to shake my mind, if it slowly destroys my faculties, one by one, if it leaves me not life but breath, I will depart from the putrid tottering edifice. If I know that I must suffer without hope or relief I will depart not through fear of the pain itself but because it prevents all for which I should live”
Seneca, ‘De Ira’, 1:15
Although traditionally associated with euthanasia, the ending of life prematurely was opposed by theistic philosophers no matter what the situation. Philosopher, John Stuart Mill concluded that intervening in a person’s autonomy was unjustifiable providing they were fully aware of their autonomous actions and that such an action did not cause harm to society. In relation to suicide, the ethical question of whether suicide (otherwise known as unassisted euthanasia) is morally justifiable or not, it must first be questioned whether the person involved is aware of their actions and if so then their autonomy must be left intact, no matter what the repercussions. On a personal level I must conclude that to myself the question of whether suicide is morally justifiable or not is purely semantically orientated and the question is more whether suicide will make the person involved happy, or more precisely, end their misery. Arthur Schopenhauer has written one of the most eloquent arguments regarding suicide; his view did not come from a deep-rooted moral conscious, nor a fiercely driven religious standpoint but more from the existential questions of life and death, which I feel gave his view the greatest impact, he claimed suicide was like a great question:
“A question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man's existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer”.
Arthur Schopenhauer-‘On Suicide’
Essentially, he tried not to refute suicide nor support it but rather allow people to decide for themselves, and the above quote puts in a context, which I feel has great earthly wisdom, that suicide is not an issue for great theologians nor great empiricists but more that the morality of suicide lies within the individual.
I feel, that upon explaining suicide and the ending of life, perhaps the most pertinent quote comes from the great musician Jimi Hendrix, who himself died a premature death:
“Life is pleasant, death is peaceful. It’s the transition that is troublesome”
-Jimi Hendrix
His "On Suicide" is a great little essay, available online.
In highschool, my Higher philosophy dissertation was on the Bioethics of suicide. I'm gonna copy and paste that (I still have it!
) It's outdated now, and I feel slightly ashamed of it, looking back, but generally my views remain the same.I think I was 15, or thereabouts.
Arguments from Divine Providence
Enter, perhaps the greatest of medieval thinkers, St Thomas Aquinas. The views of Aquinas on suicide were, as his views on most subjects, intrinsically driven by a deep-rooted theistic belief. He believed suicide to be wholly wrong and against the wishes of God:
"It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself... Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself... Life is God's gift to man, and is subject to His power, who kills and makes to live. Hence whoever takes his own life, sins against God... for it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life."
Thomas Aquinas, ‘Summa Theologica’
As the above shows, Aquinas relinquishes all control of his life to God, and believes that suicide violates and destroys our divine ‘duty’ to live our lives, as our lives themselves are Gods gift to us and ending them prematurely is like throwing Gods gift back in his face. Yet the context of the above quote is arbitrary, namely that Aquinas, somewhat blindly, believes God exists, he is all-powerful and all knowing, omnipotent and omnipresent. And as such that view must be kept in the back burner whenever reading the works of such theistic philosophers such as Aquinas, as to realise the bias within his arguments. Yet, despite this I believe Aquinas does present some interesting arguments regarding suicide and its moral standpoint with God. He outlines three arguments upon which he establishes his grounds for opposing suicide and the very nature of such an act:
Argument 1: Natural Law
Aquinas’s first argument came from the direction that suicide disrupts the natural order and is contradictory to the natural life-asserting purpose of human existence. Such a view is somewhat old-fashioned as some modern existentialists argue that the meaning of life, as it were, is to die, thus making such an argument inherently useless. Nevertheless the classical philosophers such as Aristotle supported Aquinas argument of this nature, insofar as they agree suicide disrupts the life-asserting purpose of existence, claiming suicide is:
“Contrary to the rule of life”
Aristotle, ‘Nicomachean Ethics’, Book 5, Chapter 11
His mentor, Plato, also agreed, claiming that suicide only serves to:
“Frustrate the decree of destiny”
Plato, ‘Laws’, book 8, page 873
Argument 2: Impacting Utilitarianism
His second argument supposed that suicide could not be justifiable as it caused greater social harm, than singularly the ending of one life. His argument was that suicide affected many, perhaps the person committing suicide was destined to cure the world of disease, and thus while impacting society it also intervened in fate and hence, Aquinas could not accept it as justifiable. However the concept of fate is a highly debatable one. Perhaps when looking upon theistically driven arguments against suicide, as a morally wrong act, it must be seen that the ideal of fate plays a key role. If fate does not exist then a God cannot be omnipotent and thus the basis for all theistic interpretations of the word God are inherently useless, although not crucial in relation to the suicide argument, such a concept is extremely and perennially interesting when it comes to examining fate and God.
Argument 3: Morally Lamentable
Aquinas argued, finally, that suicide is morally wrong as it can be paralleled to stealing from God. Our lives are the property of our divine creator and we are merely trustees of that designated property. However, I feel I must point out that such an argument is purely theistic; personally I find the idea that my life belongs to a divine creator, whom has entire control over my designated path, inherently insulting. Once again, such an argument only holds water with those whom already believe in God, and his “rules” on suicide are merely a sidetrack to that.
Yet again, I feel that Aquinas argument lacks any real veracity; his assumption that our lives are the property of God is devout of logic and, essentially, a useless assumption. Using such ‘duty based’ ethics to conclude that we owe something to God is, therefore, an unsound, unstable, indemonstrable foundation for any argument against suicide. I feel it important to point out that Aquinas’s argument regarding natural law is yet another example of a bold statement lacking any ironclad logic as it completely negates such deals as freewill (defined by René Descartes as"the ability to do or not do something" -Meditation IV), and which, dare I be so bold, is perhaps the main reason why anyone actually lives life. Following a set route or path takes the excitement away from any situation and would make life mundane, and thus I must disagree wholly with Aquinas on such a view. As such I must, on a personal level, dismiss Aquinas’s arguments and support free will of a person to commit suicide if it is what they wish to do. (As I side-note I find it important to remind ourselves that philosophical discussion, transcending two millennia has not even managed to establish the existence of free-will, as it is not an empirically measurable force, yet, as an individual, I maintain its existence to be crucial to everything I consider to be life.) My views, while not pro-suicide are predominantly pro-free will epitomised by the views of renowned American satirist, PJ O’Rourke:
“There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences”
PJ O’Rourke- ‘Parliament of Whores’
As such, freedom of the mind, body and soul, I believe is of the utmost importance and I must refute, with all my power, the arguments of Aquinas claiming that my life shall be determined by Gods will, and his will alone.
However, Aquinas was not alone in his plight to label suicide as against the wishes of God, modern philosophers such as the great Immanuel Kant have supported his views. Undoubtedly one of modern philosophy’s greatest minds Kant also had a contribution to the discussion of suicide. He, also, contended that suicide was wrong on many grounds. He discussed two common justifications of suicide (that suicide violates the life asserting purpose of existence and also that life is the property of God) and systematically, analysed and destroyed them, within the realms of his logic:
“As soon as we examine suicide from the standpoint of religion we immediately see it in its true light. We have been placed in this world under certain conditions and for specific purposes. But a suicide opposes the purpose of his creator; he arrives in the other world as one who has deserted his post; he must be looked upon as a rebel against God. God is our owner; we are his property; his providence works for our good”
Immanuel Kant, ‘Lectures on Ethics’ pages 153-154
Many argued that freedom dictates that any person may, if they wish, commit suicide, so long as doing so does not directly violate the lives of others. However, Kant claimed that the highest duty to society and ourselves and God is self-preservation and thus suicide surpasses these boundaries, and only serves to “degrade our inner worth”. Kant then leaps to a perhaps unjustifiable and uncharacteristic conclusion, on consequentialist grounds that, if a person can commit suicide then they are, in effect, capable of any crime: “He who does not respect his life even in principle cannot be restrained from the most dreadful vices”. Kant contended, much the same as Aquinas, that suicide permeates and soils upon our duty to God insofar as it deviates from his “plan” for our lives and is also that our lives are indeed the property of our creator. From the arguments highlighted by Kant, one perhaps stands out as being most out rightly flawed and lacking logical grounds, being that suicide negates our duty to God, or in the words of Kant, like “deserting our post”. On a personal plateau, such an argument is useless, if theists claim God is all loving and all powerful then why are we to spend our lives eternally in his servitude or bondage, only to die when his “plans” for us come to their conclusion? It seems, to this writer, to be a contradiction and as one must be pondered upon with a certain amount of scepticism. In relation to our “duty” to Gods plan, David Hume presents powerful and damning arguments to refute such ideals, of which shall be discussed later.
A less well-known, yet still prolific medieval philosopher was Aurelius Augustinus (known to the modern world as St Augustine) whom also supported the views of Aquinas and Kant. In his book “City of God”, (which was originally written to refute the notion that Christianity was to blame for the demise of the Roman empire) Augustine claims that suicide violates the commandment “Thou shall not kill”. However I feel it important to point out that, theists aside, such a commandment is utterly open to interpretation, perhaps it means thou shall not kill animals, or other people, yet on such an atheistic plain, the commandments hold no weight in themselves anyway. Rather hypocritically, St Augustine, although condemning suicide, does feel that divinely ordained wars (so called ‘holy wars’
are justifiable, yet he maintained, rather devoutly, that suicide held no such parallel justification. Such an argument is almost laughable, although personal views of others must be respected; I find the fact that Augustine supports divinely ordained wars yet condemns suicide totally inconceivable. One must ask the question: who decides whether a war is divinely ordained or not? Not to mention, surely such a decision can surely only be decided by God? (Providing such a creator exists, which in itself cannot be adequately proved, other than to those whom already believe). Intrinsically, the point I am trying to make is: If God is the all-mighty, all-loving creator that theists claim him to be, and that suicide both violates his plan and steals his property then how, on earth, can a single person decide that a war is “divinely ordained”? And if so, does doing so not break the commandment “thou shall not kill” as a matter of course? Bending the “rules” simply because theists decide it is divinely ordained is somewhat duplicitous and hypocritical, it seems to this writer. To the casual observer it makes no sense, and to the analytical mind, it makes even less sense and as such I must refute the arguments presented by Augustine.
Arguments for Suicide
Somewhat characteristically, David Hume refuted and disputed with almost all of philosophy’s great minds not least Aristotle, arguably the greatest analytical and speculative thinker of all time, and described by Dante Alighieri as “The master of them that know”. Hume was, to this writer, THE most important thinker and one of the most eloquent writers, of modern times. Hume, perhaps known best for his attack on causation, has a disposition that requited calm and collect, yet intellectually he was fierce and savagely tore apart many an argument. Including many of the arguments against suicide, of which this essay shall discuss. What was be remembered is that Hume was a great sceptic and spent much time systematically, analysing and destroying all arguments with a theistic basis, and it must be remembered that suicide was merely a facet of such work and perhaps Hume has no moral ground for arguing in support of suicide, nevertheless his work is pivotal when studying suicide.
In 1757 Hume had penned for release a collection of five essays, which were, as a whole, titled “Essays on suicide and the immortality of the soul”. However due to over bearing political pressure Hume was forced to withdraw the works, as a collection, from publication, Singularly demonstrating the scandalous bigotry and outrageous ecclesiastical tyranny that prevailed in Britain at the time. However in 1783, seven years after his death, it was released. In particular this essay shall discuss and analyse his great essay: ‘Of Suicide’. Hume’s main aim was to attack the duty-based ethical arguments submitted by Aquinas and his supporters against suicide, at their foundations and prove that suicide was, as far as God is concerned, NOT morally inexplicable. Hume’s entry point was from the standpoint of duty-based ethics, as championed by the likes of Hugo Grotius. And from such a standpoint, Hume demonstrated, through argument, that we hold no duty to God (contrary to the arguments of Kant and Aquinas) thus leaving the morality of suicide intact. Hume’s views on suicide may be summed up, although, perhaps over simplistically, in the following quote:
“I believe that no man, ever threw away a life, while it was still worth keeping”
David Hume – ‘Of Suicide’
Generically, Hume’s most accessible argument, that refutes the notion of suicide violating Gods “plan” may be shown as follows:
Assuming for a second that God does exist, it is perfectly and empirically reasonable to assume that there are two forms of existential forces, “created” by God. Firstly there is the rule of nature, insofar as explaining naturally occurring events such as tsunamis or hurricanes. Secondly there is the rule of purposeful action, that is to say our ability to act, on purpose, within our world. It can be seen that humans have been given the ability to alter nature, purposely, in order to be happy. From the standpoint of the individual suicide is an act that alters nature in order to achieve happiness and as such committing suicide cannot and does not violate God’s plan.
Essentially, such an argument assumes a theistic standpoint. It takes the theistic ideal that God created man in his own image and determined all the abilities of which man should have. Thus it is logical to assume, on a theistic basis, that God delegated free will to man and as such the above argument is ambiguously valid and logically sound. Such a firm basis allows this writer to whole-heartedly agree. The arguments from divine providence, yet again, suffered from lacking veracity and Hume eloquently tears them apart leaving no option but to see their flaws. Perhaps without a moral conscience, it must be said, however the fact remains Hume has relentlessly demonstrated that suicide has an intact morality in the eyes of God.
Another manifestation of such an argument likens suicide to many other features of life that theists and God seem to have no apparent disdain for, thus making suicide essentially as moral as these other events or actions. Hume firstly states that reality has two main principles, purposeful actions and actions (or forces) of nature:
“Two distinct principles of the material world and animal world continually encroach upon each other, and mutually retard or forward each others operations”
David Hume – ‘Of Suicide’
Quintessentially, Hume was pointing out that man depends on the inanimate forces of nature for hindrance or direction and conversely, the inanimate is directed or hindered by man, essentially that although each principle is opposite, they are mutually co-dependent. Although a hard concept to grasp, it works very well when applied to the problem of suicide, within the boundaries of ending life, within bioethics. A key metaphor, which explains this dialectic, is a river. Changing the course of a river may go against the fate of the river, yet it holds true to the fact that change is inevitable. Retaining this ideal, it seems that Hume was attempting to point out, in a multifarious manner, was that we cannot measure the significance of any instance where the fate of nature has been infringed upon and doing so is merely semantics. Applied to suicide this demonstrates that changing the course of a river cannot be seen as any more morally unjustified than suicide itself. An enlightening concept, this writer believes. Further support of these arguments can be mustered from simple facts, supplied by Hume such as: If ending life prematurely violates the “plan” of God then surely using medicine to prolong life is fundamentally the same thing? Prolonging life alters the natural course of things and, to Hume; differentiation between the two different forms of altering nature (diverting a rivers course and committing suicide) is purely meaningless speculation, as this writer must agree.
The above arguments are perhaps Hume at his analytical and destructive best. He points out that suicide cannot be seen an morally lamentable by God, which was a key argument in Aquinas’s arguments against suicide, while also destroying Aquinas’s argument that suicide violates a duty to God. Systematically Hume destroyed Aquinas’s and Kant’s arguments against suicide, although their demise was almost certain from the flaws within themselves, and like a damaged building, they would have collapsed under the weight of their own preposterous conclusions. Although already very convincing, Hume’s contributions, so far as this essay has shown, on the question of suicide have all but left one area of Aquinas’s argument intact, the part pertaining to suicide and its impact upon society. However Hume cast his powerful mind to this subject too, providing a simple yet devastating argument refuting Aquinas and his conclusions. The following argument, loosely, known as the argument from social reciprocity.
It makes sense to assume that when we die, we do not harm society, we merely cease to do good. It can also be logically assumed that our responsibility to do good is reciprocally related to the benefits we receive from society. When death occurs, the dead person can no longer receive benefits from society, therefore, reciprocally speaking, the dead person no longer has a duty to do good, in order to serve society. As such, suicide cannot be shown to damage society, only to stop doing good.
Such an argument totally refutes the remaining argument submitted by Aquinas in regard to suicide harming society. Hume also argues that no-one can be obliged to do a small good for society at the expense of a great harm to themselves, which in a logical realm does make, to myself a least, make sense. Although not without its flaws, Hume’s arguments are, to myself, infinitely more convincing than that of Aquinas as they have no basis on theistic characters which themselves cannot even be proven to even exist.
Finally, Hume concludes that all suicides must be committed with strong personal reasons. A concept that this writer must agree with, Hume follows with an argument that suggests in order for suicide to be committed we must first over come our natural and inbuilt fear of death. Hume argues that to even contemplate suicide we must have a strong conviction and powerful motives. Such difficulty and fear in facing death can be shown in a quote from Shakespeare’s Cymbeline:
“Against self slaughter there is a prohibition so divine that cravens my weak hand”
William Shakespeare – ‘Cymbeline’, Act 3, scene IV
Having discussed Hume I feel it important to say that, I believe, Hume’s attack on suicide has no moral conscience, and this is perhaps one of its greatest flaws. It seems, instead, to come from his sceptical nature on all things related to God. His systematic movements from area to area, dismantling such arguments pertaining to a divine creator seem to be purely agnostic; it seems to myself, at least. Although he did feel passionately about such subjects, as can be seen and felt from his eloquent prose, suicide, seems to me, to be only a side subject upon which he projected his strong analytical mind.
I feel, at this point, it important to point out that although distasteful of Aquinas’s arguments, I don’t fully agree with the views of Hume, although they are much more convincing. My views must fall slightly short of Hume’s apparent support for suicide, although I have no moral grounds for refuting suicide, I believe that if a person wishes to commit suicide then committing such an act is of their accord. However I must conclude that ending the misery by ending the totality is an illogical concept, however one cannot expect the thoughts in a suicidal persons mind to be logical.
Another philosophical standpoint pertaining to the end of life is that of Seneca. A Roman philosopher, he condoned suicide claiming:
“I will not relinquish old age if it leaves my better part intact. But if it begins to shake my mind, if it slowly destroys my faculties, one by one, if it leaves me not life but breath, I will depart from the putrid tottering edifice. If I know that I must suffer without hope or relief I will depart not through fear of the pain itself but because it prevents all for which I should live”
Seneca, ‘De Ira’, 1:15
Although traditionally associated with euthanasia, the ending of life prematurely was opposed by theistic philosophers no matter what the situation. Philosopher, John Stuart Mill concluded that intervening in a person’s autonomy was unjustifiable providing they were fully aware of their autonomous actions and that such an action did not cause harm to society. In relation to suicide, the ethical question of whether suicide (otherwise known as unassisted euthanasia) is morally justifiable or not, it must first be questioned whether the person involved is aware of their actions and if so then their autonomy must be left intact, no matter what the repercussions. On a personal level I must conclude that to myself the question of whether suicide is morally justifiable or not is purely semantically orientated and the question is more whether suicide will make the person involved happy, or more precisely, end their misery. Arthur Schopenhauer has written one of the most eloquent arguments regarding suicide; his view did not come from a deep-rooted moral conscious, nor a fiercely driven religious standpoint but more from the existential questions of life and death, which I feel gave his view the greatest impact, he claimed suicide was like a great question:
“A question which man puts to Nature, trying to force her to an answer. The question is this: What change will death produce in a man's existence and in his insight into the nature of things? It is a clumsy experiment to make; for it involves the destruction of the very consciousness which puts the question and awaits the answer”.
Arthur Schopenhauer-‘On Suicide’
Essentially, he tried not to refute suicide nor support it but rather allow people to decide for themselves, and the above quote puts in a context, which I feel has great earthly wisdom, that suicide is not an issue for great theologians nor great empiricists but more that the morality of suicide lies within the individual.
I feel, that upon explaining suicide and the ending of life, perhaps the most pertinent quote comes from the great musician Jimi Hendrix, who himself died a premature death:
“Life is pleasant, death is peaceful. It’s the transition that is troublesome”
-Jimi Hendrix
I think suicide is probably the most important of philosophical questions; everything else pales by comparison.
Life and living, under hard thought, becomes absurd and empty. You eat in order to live another day to be hungry. Is there a purpose to life? Who knows, the whole thing is ambiguous if not depressingly obvious.
Life and living, under hard thought, becomes absurd and empty. You eat in order to live another day to be hungry. Is there a purpose to life? Who knows, the whole thing is ambiguous if not depressingly obvious.