On Suicide

I started reading David Hume's 'On Suicide' last night, a work which was certainly controversial upon its publication for that time. Hume basically argues that if suicide is wrong, it is wrong for one of the following three reasons:

1) It is a transgression of our duty to God
2) It is a transgression of our duty to our fellow man
3) It is a transgression of our duty to ourselves

Hume proceeds to argue that suicide is not a transgression of our duty to God. God created the material laws (like gravity, etc) and of the 'animal worlds' (i.e. our senses, passions, memories, judgements etc), and whatever we do within these laws is not a transgression of our duty, provided we do not violate our duty either to ourselves or our fellow man.

Some would say that taking your own life is interfering directly into God's realm: life is something that is God's to give and God's to take. But Hume says that by this argument, we should not make an effort to save ourselves or others from any dangers from the material laws, say if we were sitting and saw a car coming our way at a high speed, we should not make an effort to dive out of the way, because it was God's will that the car should come, and thus God wills to take our life. Furthermore, the death penalty should certainly be abolished by this principle. Life is not ours to take. We should instead imprison felons until God wills to take their lives. We may speed it up with the poor conditions of our prisons, but God has to take the final reap.

Taking one's on life is manipulating the order of God no more than anything we do in this material world, like building a house. Hume draws an analogy:

'It would be no crime in me to divert the Nile or Danube from its course, were I able to affect such purposes. Where then is the crime of turning a few ounces of blood from their natural channels!' (page 5, On Suicide, David Hume)

Again, Hume says that we are taught to accept the ills of our life through the evils of our enemies as divine Providence, even when they make attempts on my life. Thus taking my own life is as much divine Providence as being assassinated by another, or being mauled by a mountain lion.

In fact, it is blasphemy to think that we, as mere humans, could go against divine Providence, or violate the order of the world! If we attribute everything in our lives to divine Will, we have to do the same to its ending, even by our own hands.

Is suicide then a transgressions of our duty to our fellow man? Hume says that we are not expected to make a small contribution to society at the expense of a large pain to ourselves, and if our suffering be great, then this would outweigh whatever little we could contribute to society. And what more if we are unable to contribute to society! By killing ourselves we would be doing a good thing, by ridding society of its deadweight. Although not so much a problem in Hume's time, overpopulation would certainly spring to mind here.

Is it then a transgression of our duty to ourselves? If we are suffering, certainly not. While progress with a life of misery and pain? In fact, it is our duty to ourselves to alleviate the bane of our life. In his infamous words:

'I believe that no man ever threw away life while it was worth keeping.' (page 10, On Suicide, David Hume)

Is Hume'e assessment correct? I am inclined to agree with Hume's first argument about Providence. Hume was almost certainly an atheist, and this is quite apparent from the way he takes the doctrine of Providence and points out its inconsistency in banning suicide.

However, I feel the reason that suicide should not be practiced is more an expedient one than a moral one. Hume's second and third arguments, in particular, seem rather shaky. A man may have dependents, such as a wife, or children, in which case taking his life is irresponsible to say the least, whatever his emotional state. Also, through taking his own life, a man may hurt those around him deeply. Hume seems to have in mind a man with absolutely nothing left to live for, a parody of a suicidal man if ever there was one.

Which leads me to my next point. Hume says that no man ever took his life while it was worth living. For such a staunch supporter of empiricist backing and evidence, Hume is certainly proved wrong here. How many cases are there of people who commit suicide over something entirely silly, maybe perhaps because of lost love, when love comes and goes? How many cases are there of people who are saved from taking their own lives and come to see their folly and realise that life is in fact worth living? Yes, people may be mistaken in everything they do, but suicide has a finality about it. If I make a mistake in taking my own life, there's no remedying it, there's no do-overs. That's that.

As aforementioned, Hume's idea of a suicidal person seems very much an extreme. The person would have no loved ones and would be in indelible pain from which there is no respite. Hume's arguments would be more suited towards euthanasia (resulting either from extreme physical or emotional pain) than suicide. The reasons against suicide are, in my opinion, more expedient than moral.

So kids, don't kill yourself, however emo you may be.