DArcy Fine

211333507
Phil 1100: The Meaning of Life
Course Director: Henry Jackman
TA: Lauren Edwards
Word Count: 1198

Critical Essay: Hume and Suicide

An answer to the question:

What is Humes argument for the claim that suicide is at least sometimes permissible, and how might
a defender of the impermissibility of suicide respond to it. At the end of the day, is Humes argument
sound? If so, explain why. If not, explain why

In On Suicide, Hume examines whether suicide is always a criminal act. Hume states that

IF Suicide is criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty to God, our neighbour, or ourself (Hume,

p. 8). According to Hume, suicide is not always a transgression against God, ones neighbours, or

oneself; therefore Suicide is sometimes permissible. Opponents of Humes position would argue that

while Humes argument is valid, it is not sound. After examining each premise from a critical

perspective, one will find that Humes argument for the permissibility of specific cases of suicide is

both valid and sound.

Hume states that if suicide is always criminal, it must be an affront to our duty to God (Hume,

p. 8). There are two main issues that Hume addresses in relation to this point. The first addresses

fundamental laws, the second the idea of naturalism. According to Hume, there are no laws that

specifically refer to the impermissibility of suicide. God is all knowing and all powerful, and created

the laws of nature. He did not take it upon himself to be in charge of the disposal of the lives of men

(Hume, p. 9). The laws of animals are the same as the laws of men, therefore killing oneself is not

necessarily an affront to God and his laws.

 If God created the laws of nature, suicide could also be argued against, because it is an

unnatural act that alters the timeline of an individuals life (Hume, p. 10). If one takes that view, all

acts that alter this timeline are an affront against god. However, individuals alter the timeline of their

life on a regular basis. These alterations include the use of medicine, going to the doctor, or any other

number of daily acts. Hume uses the example of a man preventing a rock from hitting him in the head

(Hume, p. 10). The use of medicine and going to the doctor is not considered an affront to ones duty to

god, even to those who believe suicide is always a criminal act. Therefore, suicide cannot be impious if

taking medicine is not. Humes arguments are valid, suicide is not always an act of impiety against god.

Humes second premise claims that suicide would only be criminal if it is always a violation of

ones neighbour (Hume, p. 12). He specifically points out that there are many situations where if an

individual were to continue living they would be a burden to society. Their death actually constitutes a

positive effect. (Hume, p. 12). Assisted suicide is a topical issue in contemporary Canadian society. It

presents itself as a strong example in the case of someone who is terminally ill. From a resource

perspective, continuing to receive medical treatments to delay the inevitable, death, is a burden on

society. Medical resources are costly and limited. A terminally ill patients family also continues to

suffer as the individual's medical condition deteriorates. The family must not only commit time and

resources to their relative, but the suffering also takes an emotional and mental toll. Society and the

patient's family would be better off if the patient's end is hastened. Suicide is therefore not always an

affront to ones neighbour.

This same case of terminal illness also provides support for Hume's third premise; that if suicide

is always criminal it must always be an affront to oneself. Hume argues that suicide is not always an

affront to oneself (Hume, p. 14). Terminal painful illness can in fact make life a terrible place for the

suffering individual. Continuing to live under such negative circumstances is doing yourself a
disservice. For Hume, humanity's will to live is a great one and for an individual to consider suicide,

they must be living under terrible circumstances. I believe that no man ever threw away life, while it

was was worth keeping (Hume, p. 13). A life ended by suicide can in fact be argued as a relief of

unbearable pain.

Hume's argument is valid, as it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion

false (Jackman, September 5th, 2016). A defender of the absolute criminality of suicide would need to

individually question, the soundness of each of Hume's three main premises. Hume stands against

these criticisms by supporting his first, second and third premises, making clear that he is arguing to

show that that action may be free from every imputation of guilt and blame (Hume, p. 8). To prove

each premises as unsound, one must prove absolutely that they are untrue in all cases.

Humes first premise can be examined for soundness from a religious perspective. Christianity

(Humes religious background) as a whole is anti-suicide, suicide is a sin. Regardless of ones personal

stance this is not a belief based in fact, only speculation and faith. There is no scientific evidence one

way or another that suicide is an affront to God, and that this first premise is not sound. Humes second

premise is also hard to criticize from a position of soundness. Criticism could be given by arguing that

every individual is contributing to society as a whole, regardless of whether it seems clear or not.

With that being said, there are many times in which a persons choice to die has lead to greater good.

An extreme example is the many individuals who have been known to sacrifice their lives to help

others. Is a soldier who throws on a grenade to save others not a form of suicide? Yet many of those

same critics of suicide would praise said soldier. Humes second premise is fundamentally sound.

Humes third premise may also be questioned for soundness, but with no real success. It is impossible

to argue that a person is always doing themselves harm when choosing to end their lives. The reasoning

and possibilities relating to that choice are endless. Suicide can take on many different forms, as can the
reasoning behind an individuals choice. Each of Humes premises are sound in their own right, and

together they form a sound and valid argument.

Hume has a sound argument for the permissibility of suicide. He is not stating that suicide

is always a valid decision, but that it can be permissible .Hume has has built a strong theory, his

argument is valid and sound. Human life is a complex endeavour that one can only strive to understand.

The same complexities and choices that apply to living also apply to the intentional ending of ones

life.

Works Cited *

*didnt use course kit, spoke to Lauren in tutorial and got approval

Hume, David. Essays On Suicide And The Immortality Of The Soul. Raleigh, N.C.: Generic NL

Freebook Publisher, n.d. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost).

Jackman, Henry Lecture Notes: Arguments in General. Toronto, ON. York University, Philosophy

1100: The Meaning of Life Sept 5, 2016