Ethics and Suicide

Ethics and Suicide

There are two primary essential issues with respect to suicide: first, regardless of whether suicide is ethically reasonable, and assuming this is the case, in what conditions; and second, whether an individual who realises that somebody is examining or endeavouring suicide has a commitment to mediate and provided that this is true, how solid that commitment is.

Regarding the primary issue, it is hard to oppose the end that suicide is right in itself. To portray suicide as homicide of one's self is mistaken. Regardless of whether individuals who end it all deny the network of some great, there is no broad obligation to give great administrations to other people.

Religious issues with suicide are not powerful. Also, suicide could be rational. For instance, if one's plan of qualities is to augment the general estimation of experience, and if sooner or later negative worth exceeds positive worth, suicide would be sanely shown. Concerning intercession, various contemplation apply to people engaged with somebody thinking about or endeavouring suicide, experts, and the overall people. The individuals who are included have their own lives to live and require not adjust them not with  standing  when someone else's life is in question. Experts ought not become paternalistic specialists who keep subjects alive without wanting to and hopeless for inconclusive periods. The overall common people has just a frail obligation to spare outsiders from suicide.

DEFINITION OF SUICIDE

DEFINITION OF SUICIDE 

Briefly defined, suicide is the human act of self-inflicted, self-intentioned cessation. Suicide is not a disease (although there are many who think so); it is not a biological anomaly (although biological factors may play a role in some suicides); it is not an immorality (although it has often been treated as such); and it is not a crime in most countries around the world (although it was so for centuries). 

It is unlikely that any one view or theory will ever define or explain phenomena as varied and as complicated as acts of human self-destruction. Our own initial definition is fraught with complexities and difficulties. 

The history of our key word provides only initial assistance. “Suicide”, in fact, is a relatively recent word. According to The Oxford English Dictionary, the word was used in 1651 by Walter Charleton when he said: “To vindicate one’s self from . . . inevitable Calamity, by Sui-cide is not . . . a Crime.” However, the exact date of its first use is open to some question. Some claim that it was first used by Sir Thomas Browne in his book, Religio Medici, published in 1642. Edward Philips, in his 1662 edition of his dictionary, A New World of Words, claimed to have invented the word. The word “suicide” does not appear in Robert Burton’s Anatomy of Melancholy (1652 edition), nor in Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary (1755). Before the introduction of the word, other terms, of course, were used to describe “the act”— among them self-destruction, self-killing, self-murder, and self-slaughter. Burton’s phrases for suicide include “to make way with themselves” and “they offer violence to themselves”. The classical (and current) German term is in keeping with this tradition—Selbstmord, or self-murder. Other countries around the world have their own words and definitions. 

Suicide may today be defined differently depending on the purpose of the definition—medical, legal, administrative, etc. In the United States and Canada (and most of the countries reporting to the World Health Organization), suicide is defined (by a medical examiner or coroner) as one of the four possible modes of death. An acronym for the four modes of death is NASH: natural, accidental, suicidal, and homicidal. This fourfold classification of all deaths also has its problems. 

Its major deficiency is that it treats the human being in a Cartesian fashion, namely as a biological machine, rather than appropriately treating him or her as a motivated biopsychosocial organism. That is, it obscures the individual’s intentions in relation to his or her own cessation and, further, completely neglects the contemporary concepts of psychodynamic psychology regarding intention, including unconscious motivation. 

There is no universally accepted definition of suicide today. In fact, there never was one. Indeed, there are numerous definitions: and here is a sampling: Erwin Ringel (Austria): Suicide is the intentional tendency to take one’s own life. 

Charles Bagg (United Kingdom): Suicide is the intentional act of taking one’s life either as a result of mental illness (these illnesses frequently though not always causing distress to the individual carrying out the act) or as a result of various motivations which are not necessarily part of any designated mental illness but which outweigh the instinct to continue to live. 

Walter Hurst (New Zealand): The decision to commit suicide is more often prompted by a desire to stop living than by a wish to die. Suicide is a determined alternative to facing a problem that seems to be too big to handle alone. 

Sarah Dastoor (India): 

I vengeful, killer, hate—inspired—so I die 

I guilty, sinner, trapped—escaping life 

I hoping rebirth, forgiveness divine—live again 

Currently in the Western world, suicide is a conscious act of self-induced annihilation, best understood as a multidimensional malaise in a needful individual who defines an issue for which the suicide is perceived as the best solution.

Philosophy and Suicide

Philosophy and Suicide

Suicide has always been one of the most important philosophical problems through the history of philosophy. The ethical debates about the permissibility of suicide have its own history, beginning with the Ancient Greece to our own age. 

The Pythagoreans thought that suicide is disrespect to the gods and therefore they rejected it. Like them, Plato opposed suicide and discussed the issue in The Phaedo. For him, we are properties of Gods and that’s why, we have no right to kill ourselves against their will.

After Plato, Aristotle opposed suicide since it was “contrary to the rule of life” for him, suicide was an offense against the state and an act of social irresponsibility because the city was thus weakened since, while you destroy yourself, you also destroy a useful citizen.

With the decline of the power of Greece and with changing values, and with the rise of individualism, the meaning of suicide also changed. It became an approved act as the right of each person to decide whether he should continue to live or not.

During this period, the philosophies of both Stoics and Epicureans, though through different reasons, approved suicide. Epicureans thought that after the pleasures of life were abated, there was no reason to continue living. Epicurus warned men that they should weigh carefully whether they would prefer death to come to them, or would themselves go to death.

The philosophy of Stoics, by disregarding the material values and emotions, taught that death was more worthy than living. Stoic philosopher Epictetus thinks that since what a person can endure in this life differs, when things get too intolerable, that person may wish for death and in that condition suicide is permissible. Stoicism taught that suicide is a natural way of ending life which is intolerable, that’s why, committing suicide under such conditions are accepted as an honorable and a brave act. 

During the middle ages, The Christians and The Muslims regarded suicide as a sin of the first degree;

For Muslims, they have always strongly condemned suicide. The QUR’AN, holy scriptures of Islam, expressly forbids suicide as the gravest sin, a more serious crime, in fact, than homicide. Muslims believe that each individual has his or her Kismet, or destiny, which is preordained by God and must not be defied.

For Christians, St. Augustine opposed suicide strictly and declared that it is the worst of all sins. He, too, thought that life is the gift of God and our sufferings are the will of Providence, rejecting life and shortening the decided time of suffering is a violation against God; it is not accepting the divine will. Also, believed in that God definitely forbids suicide with the commandment “not kill”. Committing suicide violates this commandment. Because, this commandment not only prohibited killing others, but it also grasped denying of oneself.

After him, Thomas Aquinas developed his anti-suicide arguments. In

The Summa Theologica, Aquinas gives three arguments against suicide.

For him, every sin is a sin against God, self or the neighbor; and suicide is a sin against three of them at the same time.

First, suicide is a sin against self because it is unnatural. His second argument against suicide is that it is a sin against your neighbor. It is a utilitarian type argument. Suicide is not justified because of the social harm that is done: it is an offense against community. That’s why, it is also against justice. The third argument is a theological one as suicide is a sin against God. Suicide is a sin because it is like stealing from God. Our lives are the properties of God and we are merely trustees of that property.

This attitude towards suicide has continued for centuries until the Renaissance. During this period, with the upheaval of the static social organization of the Middle Ages, philosophers could discuss the issue in a relatively free sphere. By the rising importance of freedom and individualism during Renaissance, some philosophers could even advocate the right to suicide.

In his essay “On Suicide”, David Hume took up the Aquinas’ argument “Every sin is against self, God or Neighbor,” and discussed whether suicide is a crime through these three cases. Hume followed these arguments against suicide and by refuting them one by one; he demonstrated that suicide is not a violation of our duties against God, society and oneself. He says that: “If suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty, either to God, our neighbor, or our selves”. Since it is not, suicide can be neither crime nor sin. 

He is also opposed to St. Augustine in that the commandment ‘not kill’ bans only killing others, and, there are no statements about the prohibition of suicide in the Bible. For him, under some conditions, human beings have the right to kill themselves. 

Like Hume, Schopenhauer considered the problem in a different manner: he regarded suicide as a personal right. In his view, a person who commits suicide doesn’t intend to rebel against God or violate something, but he only prefers death because the terrors of life outweigh the terrors of death.

The importance of Hume’s essay is that it shows the permissibility or impermissibility of suicide is not completely a matter of theology.

Unlike Hume, Kant provided an original anti-suicide argument. He opposed it in the name of freedom and autonomy. In his view, individual autonomy is the most important value and suicide is wrong because it is the loss of freedom.

In1895, William James the American Philosopher Psychologist, provided another anti-suicide argument. He delivered a now-famous address to the Harvard YMCA and spoke of what he called “the nightmare view of life.” entitled “Is life worth living?” James’s lecture was a classic example of positive thinking. He answered the title question with a resounding “Yes,” and told his audience: “Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help to create the fact.”

Today, the moral permissibility of suicide is accepted as an important applied ethical issue. It generally focuses on the problems of permissibility of suicide and of suicide intervention. Moreover, the discussions about morality of suicide has value since it gives new perspectives to the more contemporary and essential subjects like euthanasia and suicide bombers.

Euthanasia and suicide bombers are the most important issues of ethics under today’s conditions although their meanings are unrelated. While euthanasia is committed for merciful reasons, the latter is committed for destruction in the name of faith; still, both of them are voluntary acts to die. 

These issues need to be discussed by philosophers so that an ethical ground for them can be constructed. That’s why; studying the history of philosophical discussions about voluntary death will be beneficial for further discussions.

Philosophy and Suicide

Philosophy and Suicide

Suicide has always been one of the most important philosophical problems through the history of philosophy. The ethical debates about the permissibility of suicide have its own history, beginning with the Ancient Greece to our own age. 

The Pythagoreans thought that suicide is disrespect to the gods and therefore they rejected it. Like them, Plato opposed suicide and discussed the issue in The Phaedo. For him, we are properties of Gods and that’s why, we have no right to kill ourselves against their will.

After Plato, Aristotle opposed suicide since it was “contrary to the rule of life” for him, suicide was an offense against the state and an act of social irresponsibility because the city was thus weakened since, while you destroy yourself, you also destroy a useful citizen.

With the decline of the power of Greece and with changing values, and with the rise of individualism, the meaning of suicide also changed. It became an approved act as the right of each person to decide whether he should continue to live or not.

During this period, the philosophies of both Stoics and Epicureans, though through different reasons, approved suicide. Epicureans thought that after the pleasures of life were abated, there was no reason to continue living. Epicurus warned men that they should weigh carefully whether they would prefer death to come to them, or would themselves go to death.

The philosophy of Stoics, by disregarding the material values and emotions, taught that death was more worthy than living. Stoic philosopher Epictetus thinks that since what a person can endure in this life differs, when things get too intolerable, that person may wish for death and in that condition suicide is permissible. Stoicism taught that suicide is a natural way of ending life which is intolerable, that’s why, committing suicide under such conditions are accepted as an honorable and a brave act. 

During the middle ages, The Christians and The Muslims regarded suicide as a sin of the first degree;

For Muslims, they have always strongly condemned suicide. The QUR’AN, holy scriptures of Islam, expressly forbids suicide as the gravest sin, a more serious crime, in fact, than homicide. Muslims believe that each individual has his or her Kismet, or destiny, which is preordained by God and must not be defied.

For Christians, St. Augustine opposed suicide strictly and declared that it is the worst of all sins. He, too, thought that life is the gift of God and our sufferings are the will of Providence, rejecting life and shortening the decided time of suffering is a violation against God; it is not accepting the divine will. Also, believed in that God definitely forbids suicide with the commandment “not kill”. Committing suicide violates this commandment. Because, this commandment not only prohibited killing others, but it also grasped denying of oneself.

After him, Thomas Aquinas developed his anti-suicide arguments. In The Summa Theologica, Aquinas gives three arguments against suicide. For him, every sin is a sin against God, self or the neighbor; and suicide is a sin against three of them at the same time.

First, suicide is a sin against self because it is unnatural. His second argument against suicide is that it is a sin against your neighbor. It is a utilitarian type argument. Suicide is not justified because of the social harm that is done: it is an offense against community. That’s why, it is also against justice. The third argument is a theological one as suicide is a sin against God. Suicide is a sin because it is like stealing from God. Our lives are the properties of God and we are merely trustees of that property.

This attitude towards suicide has continued for centuries until the Renaissance. During this period, with the upheaval of the static social organization of the Middle Ages, philosophers could discuss the issue in a relatively free sphere. By the rising importance of freedom and individualism during Renaissance, some philosophers could even advocate the right to suicide.

In his essay “On Suicide”, David Hume took up the Aquinas’ argument “Every sin is against self, God or Neighbor,” and discussed whether suicide is a crime through these three cases. Hume followed these arguments against suicide and by refuting them one by one; he demonstrated that suicide is not a violation of our duties against God, society and oneself. He says that: “If suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty, either to God, our neighbor, or our selves”. Since it is not, suicide can be neither crime nor sin. 

He is also opposed to St. Augustine in that the commandment ‘not kill’ bans only killing others, and, there are no statements about the prohibition of suicide in the Bible. For him, under some conditions, human beings have the right to kill themselves. 

Like Hume, Schopenhauer considered the problem in a different manner: he regarded suicide as a personal right. In his view, a person who commits suicide doesn’t intend to rebel against God or violate something, but he only prefers death because the terrors of life outweigh the terrors of death.

The importance of Hume’s essay is that it shows the permissibility or impermissibility of suicide is not completely a matter of theology.

Unlike Hume, Kant provided an original anti-suicide argument. He opposed it in the name of freedom and autonomy. In his view, individual autonomy is the most important value and suicide is wrong because it is the loss of freedom.

In1895, William James the American Philosopher Psychologist, provided another anti-suicide argument. He delivered a now-famous address to the Harvard YMCA and spoke of what he called “the nightmare view of life.” entitled “Is life worth living?” James’s lecture was a classic example of positive thinking. He answered the title question with a resounding “Yes,” and told his audience: “Believe that life is worth living and your belief will help to create the fact.”

Today, the moral permissibility of suicide is accepted as an important applied ethical issue. It generally focuses on the problems of permissibility of suicide and of suicide intervention. Moreover, the discussions about morality of suicide has value since it gives new perspectives to the more contemporary and essential subjects like euthanasia and suicide bombers.

Euthanasia and suicide bombers are the most important issues of ethics under today’s conditions although their meanings are unrelated. While euthanasia is committed for merciful reasons, the latter is committed for destruction in the name of faith; still, both of them are voluntary acts to die. 

These issues need to be discussed by philosophers so that an ethical ground for them can be constructed. That’s why; studying the history of philosophical discussions about voluntary death will be beneficial for further discussions.