On the Moral Permissibility of Suicide

On the Moral Permissiveness of Suicide Euthanasia and suicide have a long history of producing polarized opinions. Although neither explicitly used the word euthanasia, eighteenth-century philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant's opposed views on the morality of suicide pertain greatly to the modern debate. It is safe to say, when considering the arguments proposed by either philosopher, that David Hume would be greatly in favour whereas Kant would be vehemently opposed. Both philosophers use the same criteria to frame their argument; both men agree that suicide can only be considered morally wrong if it constitutes a transgression of our duty either to society or ourselves (both philosophers also mention our duty to God, but these theological discussions do not pertain to the modern debate on euthanasia). Hume, in his essay On Suicide, concludes that suicidal-acts do not transgress either of these duties. Kant, contrarily, concludes in both Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, as well as his Metaphysics of Morals, that suicidal-acts transgress both. The nature of these arguments (concerning duty to ourselves and others), as well as the vastly conclusions drawn by either man, seem to reflect the modern debate on euthanasia. By comparing the respective opinions of both men we can therefore imagine a debate on euthanasia between the great minds of David Hume and Immanuel Kant. As previously mentioned, both philosophers contemplate whether
2
committing suicidal-acts violate the duties owed others and ourselves. We can then ask, to begin, how would euthanasia violate our duty to ourselves? Hume believes there are some instances where suicide is undoubtedly consistent with our duties to ourselves. Life may be rendered more unbearable than death and prolonging a miserable experience is therefore a disservice to oneself. Furthermore, given the intensity with which people fear death, (and this is a reasonable claim - Kant would also agree that people