I’m
going to examine some traditional objections to suicide.
Augustine
argued that suicide was self-murder, as a logical extension of the fifth
commandment:
God’s command ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ is to be taken as forbidding self-destruction, especially as it does not add ‘thy neighbor’, as it does when it forbids false witness, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor’ (City of God, book I, chapter 20).
This is
an argument from analogy, based on the perceived symmetry between taking
someone else’s life and taking one’s own life. The argument has a lot of
superficial appeal, but is overstated.
i) The
reasoning is potentially reversible. After all, the Mosaic law includes cases
of justifiable homicide (e.g. capital punishment, the laws of war). Homicide is
not conterminous with murder. Although all murders are homicides, not all
homicides are murders.
By
parity of argument, if there are cases of justifiable homicide, then there are
cases of justifiable self-homicide.
I’m not saying
that’s a sound argument for suicide. I’m just saying that based on how
Augustine framed the issue, his argument invites that counterargument.
ii)
There’s another problem with the analogy. Let’s compare the analogy to some
counterexamples:
a) If taking
someone else’s life is murder, then taking one’s own life is self-murder:
b) If
withdrawing money from someone else’s bank account is theft, then withdrawing
money from one’s own bank account is theft.
c) If
reusing someone else’s work without attribution is plagiarism, then reusing one
own work without attribution is plagiarism.
Seems to
me that Augustine’s analogy is overly facile. At best, Augustine needs to
supply a missing premise.
iii) Is
taking your life always murderous? On 9/11, we saw office workers trapped in
the upper stories of the Twin Towers. Some of them chose to jump to their death
rather than burn to death. I wouldn’t say that was self-murder. I wouldn’t even
say that was wrong.
iv) Of
course, that’s an exceptional case. Many or most cases of suicide may well be
self-murder. But if some cases are not, then Augustine can’t argue that suicide
is murder in principle. He can’t argue that suicide is intrinsically murderous.
Aquinas
presents additional objections to suicide:
I answer that, It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruptions so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is contrary to the inclination of nature, and to charity whereby every man should love himself. Hence suicide is always a mortal sin, as being contrary to the natural law and to charity.
But this
is overstated. Did the office workers on 9/11 kill themselves because they
hated themselves? No.
Secondly, because every part, as such, belongs to the whole. Now every man is part of the community, and so, as such, he belongs to the community. Hence by killing himself he injures the community, as the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 11).
i)
There’s some truth to this, but it depends on how broadly we define
“community.” Does this mean individuals belong to the State? That would be
totalitarian.
ii)
Moreover, the argument could potentially backfire. If a murderous dictator
kills himself, the community benefits from his demise. Far from harming the
community, the community is better off.
ii) It
would be better to narrow the definition. Suicide generally harms the friends
and family members who are left behind.
iii)
However, some people commit suicide because they are old and lonely. They have
no friends and family who mourn their loss. The Thomistic argument doesn’t
anticipate that contingency.
iv) In
addition, it suggests your life isn’t inherently valuable, but only valuable
insofar as your life is valued by others. Peter Singer could redeploy that as
an argument for euthanasia.
Thirdly, because 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, even as he who kills another's slave, sins against that slave's master, and as he who usurps to himself judgment of a matter not entrusted to him. For it belongs to God alone to pronounce sentence of death and life, according to Deuteronomy 32:39, "I will kill and I will make to live."
i) This
is a promising argument, but it needs to be refined. As a rule, a “gift”
implies transfer of ownership. If I give you something, then I relinquish
claims on it. But on that definition, a man does have the right to take his
God-given life by his own hand.
In fact,
freewill theists so emphasize human autonomy that suicide might be generally
defensible on libertarian assumptions. Of course, a Calvinist would demur.
ii) Mind
you, even on that definition, it’s possible to abuse a gift. If, in his will, a
renown violinist bequeaths his Guarneri del Gesù to his star student, and his
student then sells the violin to buy a strip club in Reno, the student has
dishonored his mentor.
iii) It
is also possible to place conditions on a gift. A donor or grantor can
designate the grant or donation for a particular purpose.
iv) Some
would say a gift you can’t refuse is not a real gift. However, that’s
overstated.
The
victim of a traffic accident who’s wheeled into the ER unconscious can’t refuse
live-saving treatment, but would we say it’s not a gift?
Likewise,
someone who’s mentally ill can’t refuse psychotropic drugs that would restore
his sanity, but would we say it’s not a gift?
v) A
better argument would be to say, not that life is a gift from God, but that
life is a loan from God. We’re like tenants. God is the landlord.
On that
view, suicide is wrong because we’re taking (or destroying) something that
doesn’t belong to us–without the owner’s permission.
Of
course, there are situations in which one can rightly dispose of someone else’s
property. So the argument would have to take into account God’s unique
prerogatives.
v) We
can also think of life, not simply as a “gift,” but a privilege. We should be supremely
grateful for the privilege of life. We owe God a debt of gratitude we can never
repay.
Perhaps the arguments are a bit overstated, but I think they are valid when read properly, particularly Augustine's. If Augustine believed in justifiable acts of homicide, then presumably if presented with a situation for justifiable suicide, then perhaps he would accept it. In this case, the only thing that needs to implied is the word "unjust" before self-destruction. However, it should also be admitted that the cases of justifiable suicide are few and far between. They are the stuff spy thrillers are made of, not ordinary life, and so I wouldn't find someone culpable for not addressing such situations, particularly in a world pre-KGB and mass murder terrorist bombings. However, it is still much more likely that one will be presented with justifiable homicide in a just war or self-defense. Also, apropos (ii)(c), many academic institutions consider it plagiarism to quote your own work without attributing it.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do not see how Aquinas' argument would imply a total state at all. Remember that Aquinas lived in a time when the modern state, let alone the total state, was not even on the radar screen. Feudal society was built off personal relationships: by blood, geography, and fealty due your superior, and many other complex layers of personal relationship. This is also why I think (iii) & (iv) do not bring out substantive objections. Even if you are old and lonely, you are still part of some community, even if you are a true hermit, at least in Aquinas' view. You still owe some superior fealty, some inferior your guidance, or some equal your fellowship. By killing yourself unjustly you are robbing them of something they cannot replace, even if they never notice the robbery. In this sense, we live not for ourselves, but for others. The Total State (and, personally, I would argue the modern state as well to a lesser degree) depersonalizes the individual and subsumes him into a mass of humanity, which is not the way Aquinas would have thought of belonging to a community. That's not a human community; It's attempting to replicate a beehive. Total states also tend to undermine other personal relationships people have, such as familial and church relationships (and, most importantly, your relationship with Jesus Christ), by making them serve the state.
Your second point does not factor in that the dictator has robbed his victims of their day in court. They are thus robbed of the cathartic moment when the truth is brought to light and an evil man who has unjustly persecuted them is brought to justice. You can see this when Hitler killed himself: Yes, Germany no longer had that weight around her neck, but his victims were never able to bring the man who was primarily responsible for their agony be agonized himself as his crimes were held against him and have him ultimately put to death for his murderous deeds. There is still regret from many quarters that this did not happen.
Nate,
DeleteVery impressive for a high school student!
“However, it should also be admitted that the cases of justifiable suicide are few and far between.”
Agreed. However, I’m not discussing the issue on the merits at this juncture, but evaluating Augustine’s argument on its own terms.
Since Augustine was a just-war theorist, he doesn’t regard homicide as equivalent to murder. Therefore, his argument from analogy is fallacious.
“Also, I do not see how Aquinas' argument would imply a total state at all. Remember that Aquinas lived in a time when the modern state, let alone the total state, was not even on the radar screen. Feudal society was built off personal relationships: by blood, geography, and fealty due your superior, and many other complex layers of personal relationship.”
Aquinas doesn’t reference feudal society. Instead, he appeals to Aristotle. So he seems to make the Aristotelian polis (as Aquinas understood it) the frame of reference.
“Your second point does not factor in that the dictator has robbed his victims of their day in court. They are thus robbed of the cathartic moment when the truth is brought to light and an evil man who has unjustly persecuted them is brought to justice. You can see this when Hitler killed himself: Yes, Germany no longer had that weight around her neck, but his victims were never able to bring the man who was primarily responsible for their agony be agonized himself as his crimes were held against him and have him ultimately put to death for his murderous deeds. There is still regret from many quarters that this did not happen.”
i) You’re conflating victims with survivors. Dead Jews (and other murder victims) don’t get their day in court, even if the perpetrator is apprehended, tried, and convicted.
ii)Even if Hitler were sentenced to death, the punishment is incommensurate with the magnitude of the crime. One death for millions dead. Human jurisprudence is wholly inadequate. Only eschatological judgment will right the scales of justice.
iii) You’re also making this a binary choice between the murderous dictator committing suicide or being toppled and put on trial.
But that’s not the only scenario. What about a murderous dictator either committing suicide or remaining in power, in which position he continues to rack up the body count?
Thank you for the compliment, but I should point that my profile is a few years outdated. I'm a college religion student now, considering graduate philosophy programs.
DeleteAs for Augustine's point, would not the two be analogous if both included at least the possibility of justification? So, if the command "Thou shalt not kill" includes the idea of justifiable homicide, would it not also include any possible justifiable suicide, and prohibit all other cases of homicide and suicide? Basically, I cannot really see your objection to Augustine's point.
On Aquinas and Aristotle, fundamental to Aristotle's polis was the idea of friendship, along with superiors, and inferiors. The polis was still built on personal relationships. Also, Medieval thinkers often would anachronistically read sources, as all are prone to do, and imply similar conditions to their own day. I do not know how guilty Aquinas was on this, as most of my knowledge of his thought is from secondary sources.
As for dictators:
(i) There are victims of the regime who survive. Also, in the case of a tyrannical usurper (as Hitler and most modern dictators were/are, at least in my thinking), the country and people themselves are victims of their tyranny, even if they supported the regime. By revealing the truth about their "beloved" leader, this might help the healing process of the country by reinforcing the fact that the old regime was really an enemy of the people they purported to protect.
(ii) True. I felt this went without saying. That does not mean there is no value in human justice.
(iii) In this situation, I would simply point out that even a tyrannical usurper has a role to play in society. It is an illegitimate one, robbed from its rightful possessor, but the potential chaos that could ensue in a civil war might be worse than the tyranny itself. Also, his illegitimate successors might be able to use propaganda to make the old tyrant into a martyr. Aquinas himself on the subject of tyrannicide thought similarly. Opposition to tyranny must be organized by legitimate authorities according to his thought. A tyrant opposing his own tyranny by suicide would be illegitimate, ironically, and thus invite chaos.
I suppose if a usurper were to kill himself after the legitimate authority issued a "death warrant" of sorts, making sure he would be succeeded by a legitimate ruler, then that might be justifiable. However, I personally cannot see a dictator doing that, and there might be other reasons for him not to kill himself.
nate
Delete"Thank you for the compliment, but I should point that my profile is a few years outdated. I'm a college religion student now, considering graduate philosophy programs."
In that case I take it all back :-)
nate
Delete“As for Augustine's point, would not the two be analogous if both included at least the possibility of justification? So, if the command ‘Thou shalt not kill’ includes the idea of justifiable homicide, would it not also include any possible justifiable suicide, and prohibit all other cases of homicide and suicide? Basically, I cannot really see your objection to Augustine's point.”
He’s not arguing for the moral permissibility of suicide in some cases. Rather, he’s trying to invoke a general principle which gives us a quick, simple argument against suicide.
And as far as the analogy goes, there are situations in which killing others is not only permissible, but obligatory. Therefore, by parity of argument, there are situations in which one has a duty to commit suicide. But surely that cuts against the grain of his original argument. So his argument is well-meaning, but simplistic.
“On Aquinas and Aristotle, fundamental to Aristotle's polis was the idea of friendship, along with superiors, and inferiors. The polis was still built on personal relationships.”
Except that in hierarchical societies, inferiors belong to superiors, not vice versa. So there’s a tension between the part/whole principle and hierarchy.
“There are victims of the regime who survive. Also, in the case of a tyrannical usurper (as Hitler and most modern dictators were/are, at least in my thinking), the country and people themselves are victims of their tyranny, even if they supported the regime. By revealing the truth about their ‘beloved’ leader, this might help the healing process of the country by reinforcing the fact that the old regime was really an enemy of the people they purported to protect.”
The surviving victims don’t need to put the tyrant on trial to discover the true character of the regime. They found that out first-hand.
The notion that a trial contributes to a national healing process strikes me as sentimental nonsense, like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The generation that experiences a Hitler will never recover. It suffered irreparable harm.
“In this situation, I would simply point out that even a tyrannical usurper has a role to play in society. It is an illegitimate one, robbed from its rightful possessor, but the potential chaos that could ensue in a civil war might be worse than the tyranny itself.”
Sometimes. But in a country like N. Korea, where you’ve had a dynastic transfer of power, that perpetuates a worse-case scenario.
“Opposition to tyranny must be organized by legitimate authorities according to his thought.”
Of course, he himself was a high churchman, and Italian nobleman by birth, so his entire outlook is authoritarian.
Regarding being property of the state, laws against suicide are token at best. If one succeeds then no punishment can be meted. If one's life is so torturous, then one can only be punished by being forced to remain alive at the cost of the state. It's better for the tortured soul from this standpoint to succeed.
ReplyDeleteRegarding harming loved ones, I've often heard it said that suicide is selfish. That's because someone actually cared for the tortured soul who succeeded in committing suicide. However, if the soul is tortured to the point of suicide, then it is selfish to expect a tortured soul to live a tortured life for the sake of making the ones who love him feel better about themselves.
The penultimate argument for continuing to live a tortured life is the last one regarding owing God a debt of gratitude. In that, it only applies to the elect for the non-elect are already dead. So the ultimate argument is what was hinted at earlier in the article, namely that we have intrinsic value as bearers of the Imago Dei. Imperfect and distorted as our fallen nature has made us, the value of the Imago Dei is far greater than death and applies to both the elect and non-elect. The suffering of the tortured soul is worth the value of the Imago Dei. This also make the ministry to ease the pain of the tortured soul unto the continuation of life extremely valuable.
I do not think it is "selfish" for someone to ask for what is their just due. Suppose a father is contemplating suicide, is it selfish for his children to ask that he not kill himself so that he might perform his paternal duties? I do not think that is inherently selfish. Relationships go beyond "caring" about someone else, and involve duties that both parties perform.
DeletePsychologically speaking, those committing suicide often feel they have no place in the world. By reminding them of their relationships and their duties, this might remind them that they do have a place in the world and have duties to perform.
Nate,
DeleteThat's certainly true of dependents. However, this is a world where the government is trying to claim responsibility for dependents, where many teens don't seem to want their parents around anymore anyway, where marriage is replaced by independent individuals who happen to spend time with each other until they don't want to anymore, where people compete for importance at work and even in church, and the list goes on. In this kind of a world even where we are needed our dependents are not as dependent. Additionally, there are plenty of people who have no dependents. Many suicides are committed by teens who have no responsibilities except to themselves and are all but told that they are worthless anyway. With people marrying later if at all, and men especially being held responsible for raising the bastard children they fathered, who really cares if they live or die? Of course someone does, but many people don't recognize that and cursing the proverbial darkness isn't going to communicate that in an effective way.
So with this I offer these observations:
a) Usefulness isn't universally applicable because not everyone is equally useful. Some people simply aren't useful at all and if no other reason is given, then suicide is preferable to mental torment.
b) The best argument is a universal one that transcends situation and relies on some quality that is intrinsic to all people. Two such qualities exist: a sinful nature and the Image of God. The Imago Dei is the trump card. We can have no other use in this world and we still bear the image of God. That's amazing to me.
I am not merely talking about those who have dependents, as children also have duties to perform for their parents. Children are to honor their mother and father, and that is a lifelong duty. This is not about "usefulness," but about duty. Duty is something that applies to all, just as much as the Imago Dei because all men have duties to others, even if they choose to abdicate their duties by forsaking society. By committing suicide, you are forsaking your duty. You have abandoned your post. You have gone AWOL. So, unless you are committing suicide in fulfillment of a duty, then suicide is unjustifiable.
DeleteAs far as the way the world is working now, as far as I can see this is rebellion against God. That's also why I pointed out to Steve parenthetically that I think the modern state depersonalizes the individual. It is attempting to usurp duties and making people cogs in a well-oiled machine, and I think we Christians ought to oppose it and point out the inherent value of the individual and the individual in relationship to others in society. Just because there is a usurper involved does not abrogate the duty to the one usurped.
I would also say your point about the imago dei lacks force in today's society even more than personal duty. More people understand, even if only as a gut reaction, that they have duties to friends, family, and their broader community, than understand that they possess the image of God. It is regrettable that many do not understand the image of God, and does not affect the soundness of the argument that it is wrong to destroy the image of God, but it as a practical consideration.
Nate,
DeleteYou have a point about duty. Thanks for explaining it further. There possibly is an ontological element to duty, but I tend to categorize it as teleological. We don't all function the same.
Speaking as one who suffers from depression, what has helped me is not to think that I am particularly useful when I certainly don't feel like it. In fact, it's a bit of mental judo to recognize that I'm not particularly needed, except for the welfare of my wife and kids. The little bit that I can do ministerially could be done by anyone. God could even raise up the stones to his glory if he wanted. Going around telling people that they matter without showing due evidence that they matter doesn't help because the feeling of worthlessness conflicts with it. Evidence of teleological value is what you need. I just don't see that evidence for myself and no one has offered me any.
What helps me most is knowing that in some significant way I bear the image of God. That's a scriptural truth even if we can only speculate the manner in which we bear his image. So that's why I make the argument.
But either of these arguments will only work for the elect anyway. I don't have a clue how someone who doesn't know God perceives their own value with any veracity.