A freshman\'s philosophical exposition of Suicide

1 

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” -Albert Camus (1913-1960)

What Camus meant when he opened ​ The Myth of Sisyphus ​ with these words is that the question of whether or not to continue living is in fact the fundamental question of philosophy, from which all other questions follow (Camus, 1991). To answer this question, and remain alive, it is usually reasoned that despite the universe being totally indifferent to our existence and desire for a defined end goal in our lives, as humans we must nonetheless endeavour to create meaning for ourselves. In the following essay I will seek to know whether there are any circumstances where suicide is morally permissible and conversely whether there are any persuasive categorical reasons why one should not take their own life. I will examine the arguments of a number of different schools of thought, eastern and western, ancient and modern, with regard to these questions. There is more than a hint of truth in Camus’ words as we will see that the more thought given to the question of suicide, the less we look for reasons ‘why’ and instead, for reasons ‘why not’.

The Liberal tradition offers us a twofold answer in that it denies pretty much any consequential reasons as to whether or not to kill oneself but in fact contains a hidden categorical reason that I will deal with in a moment. Typically, the consequential reason for continued existence is that regardless of ones own personal suffering, one still has other people who care and will grieve at their loss. One has a duty, it is argued, to be there for these people. In answer to this, Liberal thinkers such as Thomas Szasz and Arthur Schopenhauer assert that self-ownership ownership of ones body - is a basic right and that if others force you to live against your will then you do not own yourself. Szasz called it “death-control” and that it should be analogous with and as widely accepted as birth-control (Sasz, 1999). Schopenhauer believed that suicide was an assertion rather than a denial of the ‘will-to-live’ and explored this idea in his renowned book, ​ The World as Will and Representation​ . A man who ends his life would like to live, if only the circumstances he is faced with would allow him to live to the fullest. Accordingly suicide is not a morally wrong way to deal with circumstances that cause great or interminable suffering, as the will to live is not

2 

destroyed (Schopenhauer, 1969). Both Schopenhauer and Szasz argued against suicide as a crime and denounced the institutions of their day which deemed those who kill themselves as sinners or mentally insane respectively. The central idea of Liberal philosophy - individual freedom - which forms the basis of the right-to-death argument, nevertheless throws up a categorical reason for remaining alive and its power is in its simplicity. John Stuart Mill in his essay ​ On Liberty writes about how an engagement where a person sells himself or allows himself to be sold as a slave is null and void, since if the power of an individual to make choices is the sine-qua-non of liberty, then it would be wrong to make a choice which precludes the making of further choices: “...he abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any future use of it, beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of himself.” (Mill, 2008; p 195)

The same must apply to suicide, the very permanent decision to make no more decisions, and if we accept that we have a moral obligation to preserve our liberty then it is therefore morally wrong to commit suicide.

Stoicism offers a more neutral, circumstantial view of suicide. Stoics in antiquity believed that we are virtuous when we recognise that the world is governed by a rational fate and hold our will in accordance with it (McGlynn, 2011). For the Stoics, only by freeing themselves from earthly passions could they find happiness and logic. It followed from this that if one was free from these passions and had come to the decision rationally, suicide was justified in the context of avoiding great pain and suffering in the future. In the context of stoic virtue, it is morally acceptable to commit suicide if circumstances prevent one from living with ​ eudaemonia​ , or in other words, from flourishing as an individual. As the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca put it, “​ The wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can​ ”(Pigliucci, 2013). This was in accordance with the general acceptance of suicide as justifiable throughout antiquity, not only in the Roman world but also in Asia where many cultures held suicide as acceptable, even honourable. This is evident especially in feudal Japanese culture where ​ Sepukku ​ was a form of honourable suicide reserved for samurai and

3 

commonly used to avoid capture in battle or to demonstrate willingness to follow their lord into death (​ Encyclopedia Britannica​ , 2013). In this case the implicit circumstances of this kind of suicide are to avoid further shame and to preserve the honour of the deceased, so the moral justification of the act rests on the virtue of ‘honour’ being more important than ones life. Similarly, the Confucian virtue ​ rén​ , equating to altruism, is seen as something worth dying for: “​ The gentleman who is resolute and ren does not seek to live on at the expense of ren, and there are times when he will sacrifice his life to complete ren.​ ” (​ Analects​ 15.9).

How can one respond to this? It seems that for much of human history people have believed that in circumstances of extreme suffering, the inability to live life virtuously, or the prospect of shame or dishonour, suicide is perfectly acceptable and often the right course of action. For one, the Stoics were not the only philosophers with thoughts on voluntary death. Plato discusses suicide in the ​ Phaedo​ , and held that suicide is unlawful as to take ones own life is “to arrogate to oneself what belongs by right to the gods” (Rist, 1969). This is a familiar thought to many of us raised in Ireland and taught that suicide is an express ticket to hell. The idea is that, contrary to the ideas of the liberals aforementioned, we don’t own ourselves, we are all God’s creatures. To take our own life is to deny God’s plan for us and attempt a shortcut. G.K. Chesterton goes as far as to call suicide “​ the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence​ ”( Chesterton, 2004). If you don’t believe in a God, or that there is any higher purpose in life at all, what then? What if the universe in all its majesty and wonder is simply indifferent to our existence, let alone our search for meaning in life. The French-Algerian philosopher Albert Camus saw this very aspect of the human condition as the definition of the absurd. We strive for meaning in our brief existence, and there is none. If we ever look for certainty, the sheer amount of information will render our efforts futile and hence it is absurd(Aronson, 2011).

4 

Camus illustrates the absurd in his retelling of the ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus, who was condemned by the gods to push a heavy stone up a mountain in the underworld only to have it roll back down when he reached the summit. Like Sisyphus, Camus says, we are cut off from a purpose. There is no single event which triggers an awareness of the absurd, rather it comes as a slow realisation from living one moment to the next, as Camus describes: “​ It happens that the stage sets collapse. Rising, streetcar, four hours in the office or the factory, meal, streetcar, four hours of work, meal, sleep, and Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and Saturday according to the same rhythm—​ ” (Camus, 1991; p 10).

For many this realisation becomes an awakening that demands action. For Camus, suicide is a “confession” that life is just not worth living: “​ It is confessing that life is too much for you or that you do not understand it​ ” (Camus, 1991; p 5). It is but one answer to the problem of the absurd realisation, and there are three in absurdist philosophy. The second is the ‘leap of faith’ or embracing a religious belief of an existence beyond the absurd, which Camus regarded as “philosophical suicide” because it is maintained through the “negation of human reason”. Suicide is not the answer, as suicide doesn’t solve the problem and merely represents submission to absurdity. Instead, Camus asks that we revolt against absurdity, embrace our condition and create our own purpose. Sisyphus accepts his seemingly tragic fate and chooses to revel in it, creating his meaning. “​ The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy​ ” (Camus, 1991; p 78). In conclusion, under Irish law it is illegal to commit suicide. I have presented a number of thinkers and movements which agree that there are categorical reasons why suicide will always be morally wrong. I have also, in my search for circumstances where suicide is morally permissible, found thinkers who believe that suicide is ​ always morally right when it is the product of rational decision-making. Today we tend to see the act as either a sin or a result of mental instability, but I think denouncing victims in this latter way ignores the possibility that their decision could have been rationally made. Many of

5 

us have known friends or loved ones who have died by their own hands. Are they criminals in our eyes like they are in those of the Irish state?

Word Count: 1634 Bibliography: ​ (in order of use) ● Camus, A. 1991. ​ The Myth Of Sisyphus And Other Essays​ , United States of America: Vintage Bks., Book Review Digest Plus (H.W. Wilson), EBSCO​ host​ , viewed 4 January 2015. ● Szasz, T. 1999. ​ Suicide as a Moral Issue​ , The Freeman, 49: 41-42 (July). ● Schopenhauer, A. 1969. ​ The World as Will and Representation Volume 1​ , translated from the German by Payne, E. F. J. United Kingdom: Dover Publications. ● Mill, J. S. 2008. ​ On Liberty And Other Essays​ , Gray, J Ed. United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. ● McGlynn, C. 2011. ‘The Consolation of Stoicism?’. In: O’Grady, P. ed. ​ The Consolations of Philosophy: Reflections in an economic downturn​ . Ireland : The Columba Press ● Pigliucci, M. 2013. ‘Philosophy of Suicide’, ​ Rationally Speaking​ , December 27th. Available at: http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.ie/2013/12/the-philosophy-of-suicide.html [Accessed 04/01/2015] ● seppuku. 2015. ​ Encyclopædia Britannica Online​ . Retrieved 09 January, 2015, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535079/seppuku ● Confucius 2003. ​ The Analects of Confucius​ , translated by Eno, R. Available at http://www.indiana.edu/~p374/Analects_of_Confucius_(Eno-2015).pdf [Accessed 04/01/2015] ● Rist, J.M. 1969. ​ Stoic Philosophy​ , United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press ● Chesterton, G.K. 2004. ​ Orthodoxy​ , United States: Kessinger Publishing ● Aronson, R. "Albert Camus", ​ The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ​ (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/camus/. [Accessed 05/01/2015]