David Hume’s Argument “On Suicide”

David Hume’s Argument “On Suicide”

Introduction: David Hume’s essay "On Suicide," explores the controversial topic of suicide and presents a compelling argument for the permissibility of suicide under certain circumstances. The central claim in Hume's argument is that suicide can be morally permissible when it enhances an individual's well-being and alleviates immense suffering. Nonetheless, defenders of the impermissibility of suicide challenge Hume's stance, emphasizing the intrinsic value of human life and the potential for misjudgment in such delicate matters. Therefore, this essay examines Hume's argument for the permissibility of suicide and explore the responses of defenders against it to ultimately determine the soundness of Hume's argument. 

Hume's Argument for Permissibility: 

David Hume starts his argument with the premise that human beings have a natural right to self-preservation, grounded in their instinctual desire for survival and well-being. Nevertheless, he asserts that self-preservation cannot be an absolute moral duty, as it might conflict with other important moral principles. Hume reasons that individuals may voluntarily relinquish their lives if continuing to live becomes unbearable due to overwhelming suffering or a lack of the basic elements necessary for a life worth living. In his argument he asks “I ask, why do you conclude that providence has placed me in this station?” (Hume, 1755, p. 3). In response to his question, he says “For my part I find that I owe my birth to a long chain of causes, of which many depended upon voluntary actions of men. If so, then neither does my death, however voluntary, happen without its consent; and whenever pain or sorrow so far overcome my patience, as to make me tired of life, I may conclude that I am recalled from my station in the clearest and most express terms” (Hume, 1755, p. 3). Therefore, according to Hume, the primary criterion for the permissibility of suicide is whether the act increases or preserves overall happiness and well-being. 

Similarly, Hume argues that the stigma surrounding suicide stems from misguided religious and cultural beliefs that condemn it without rational justification. In his essay he asks “Do you imagine that I repine2 at Providence or curse my creation, because I go out of life, and put a period to a being, which, were it to continue, would render me miserable?” (Hume, 1755, p. 2). He responds by stating that “Far be such sentiments from me; I am only convinced of a matter of fact, which you yourself acknowledge possible, that human life may be unhappy, and that my existence, if further prolonged, would become ineligible;” (Hume, 1755, p. 2). He rejects the idea that suicide is inherently sinful or that it inevitably leads to divine punishment, asserting that human life should be subject to moral scrutiny rather than religious dogma. Accordingly, Hume advocates for a more compassionate and rational approach to suicide, emphasizing that individual circumstances must be evaluated objectively to determine the moral permissibility of the act. 

Defenders' Response to Hume's Argument: 

Generally, proponents of the impermissibility of suicide content that the intrinsic value of human life as the foundation of their position. Their argument is based on the idea that human life has intrinsic dignity and value, making any purposeful termination ethically wrong. This point of view frequently draws from philosophical and religious traditions that uphold human life as precious and untouchable, transcending any personal anguish or pain. Defenders argue that one's life is not solely their own to dispose of, as it has an impact on the community and loved ones. 

Moreover, defenders mention the potential risks associated with allowing suicide to be permissible. They assert that granting the moral right to end one's life might lead to a slippery slope, wherein societal norms shift to undervalue life, and vulnerable individuals may be coerced or misled into making life-ending decisions.  As such, advocates for the impermissibility of suicide fear the normalization of suicide as a response to challenging circumstances, which could undermine efforts to address mental health and provide support for individuals facing difficulties. 

Additionally, proponents highlight the fallibility of human judgment in evaluating whether suicide is genuinely enhancing overall happiness and well-being. They argue that individuals might perceive their circumstances as intolerable, but with proper support and intervention, they could find alternative solutions to their problems. Allowing suicide as a permissible act might cut short opportunities for growth, resilience, and the realization of potential happiness. 

Evaluation of Hume's Argument: 

After careful consideration of Hume's argument for the permissibility of suicide, we can note that it holds significant merit in promoting autonomy, empathy, and individual well-being. Hume highlights the significance of assessing each situation on its own merits, without relying on dogmatic beliefs or societal norms that stigmatize suicide. His emphasis on rational evaluation over religious condemnation encourages a more open and compassionate conversation about mental health and the complexities of human suffering. 

Nevertheless, Hume's argument is not without its challenges. Critics contend that evaluating the overall happiness and well-being involved in a suicidal decision is an inherently subjective process, potentially leading to inconsistent judgments. The potential for misjudgment or coercion in cases of vulnerable individuals is a significant concern. Besides, the permissibility of suicide might undermine societal efforts to provide comprehensive mental health support and crisis intervention, as it could inadvertently normalize suicide as an acceptable solution to problems. 

Conclusion: 

Conclusively, Hume's defense of the permissibility of suicide emphasizes the significance of individual autonomy and rational evaluation in moral decision-making. As such, Hume encourages a more nuanced and empathetic approach to the issue by challenging traditional religious and cultural taboos surrounding suicide. Those who oppose the impermissibility of suicide, however, raise essential concerns about the intrinsic value of human life, the potential risks of permitting suicide, and the fallibility of subjective evaluations. In the end, although Hume's argument considerably advances the current discourse ais necessary due to the potential risks of condoning suicide as well as the inherent ambiguity of moral judgments. To address the root causes of suffering and lower the suicide rate, societies should place a higher priority on comprehensive mental health support, information, and empathy. We can more adeptly navigate this tricky ethical landscape and better support those bearing the burdens of life by fusing social duty with rational compassion.  

References

Hume, D. (1755). On suicide. York University.