Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant on Suicide - Essay Example

Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant on Suicide According to the World Health Organization, the highest is 71 people for every 100,000 who kill themselves annually in Lituania, 57 in Belarus, 51 in Kazakhstan, 48 in Latvia, and so on (“Suicide rates per 100,000 by country, year and sex”). Whether this number of suicide cases is reasonable or not, it is assumed that when the act was committed and even only at that point, an individual had considered suicide as the most reasonable means of surviving the situation, and that the number of people who accept such an idea may in fact be increasing. The 18th century philosophers Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant constructed ethical principles that determined the rightness or wrongness of suicide. The act of suicide is not moral based on the ethical principles authored by Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant. Bentham’s philosophy is defined by the value of the action in terms of utility, which roughly translates as human benefit, and so suicide does not give a person any material benefit in the long run for it almost always results in death. For the British philosopher, the moral basis of an action is how much utility it affords the individual. This translates as pleasure and avoidance of pain according to “its intensity, its duration, its certainty or uncertainty, its propinquity or remoteness” (Perry & Bratham 485). Most people would contend that suicide may bring the individual peace and freedom from any more physical pain as he dies. However, committing suicide is also through pain itself, which is never a benefit to the individual. The intensity and duration of the act of suicide must be equivalent to the intensity and duration of pain that the person will experience. Moreover, the certainty of death and the propinquity of this death relative to the individual also bring us to the realization that suicide is never morally good. Despite its seeming benefits in giving the person a peaceful afterlife, suicide is never good because of the pain it involves. Even though suicide is painless, it is still not moral. Bentham may actually contend that the bases of a moral act – “its intensity, its duration, its certainty or uncertainty, its propinquity or remoteness” – must also carry on in the afterlife (Perry & Bratham 485). After all, there is no guarantee that there is no more spiritual pain and torment in the afterlife even if death meant the cessation of all physical pain. Thus, suicide is not moral because it does not truly give the guarantee that one is freed from pain just because one dies. After all, there is no authentic proof that the afterlife is a life of eternal goodness and pleasure. Moreover, suicide is not moral because it is followed by undesirable circumstances. For Bentham, an act is moral also if it is followed by sensations of the same kind, which is known as fecundity, or if it is not being followed by sensations of the opposite kind, which is known as purity (485). In terms of fecundity, no one can really be sure about suicide as its usual consequence is death. However, based on Bentham’s definition of fecundity, the sensations of pain from suicide may actually be followed by more pain in the afterlife or in the physical life if the person did not actually die. On the other hand, when it comes to purity of action, even if the suicide were painless, there is no guarantee that there is no more pain for the individual in the afterlife. Moreover, there must even be a lot of pain that he would leave in the physical world. There is therefore no escape from pain when it comes to suicide, thus it is not a moral act. Suicide is also not moral because it negatively affects many people. For Bentham, one last basis of the morality of an act is its “extent” or the number of people who are affected by it (485). This means that the person who dies from suicide leaves behind family members and friends who would grieve his death or who would suffer in this world because of him. For example, if he were a doctor and he commits suicide prior to a surgery that he is going to conduct that day, then he leaves behind plenty of suffering to his patient. He also leaves behind a family who financially depends on him and a wife who depends on him emotionally. In fact, even if he were a horrible person life a criminal, he would leave behind a minimum of at least one family member who would cry and grieve over his death despite the many people who will rejoice at the announcement of such death. For Bentham, wherever there is pain, there must not be morality. Suicide is also not moral because it does not follow the Golden Rule, which can be loftily translated as Kant’s categorical imperative. Based on Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, morality is the same as performing the categorical imperative: “Act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Sahakian & Sahakian 45). This means that, in terms of morality, it does not matter what the particular circumstances are, where and when they are happening, and who is involved in the act. The only thing that matters is that the categorical imperative is done. Thus, for Kant, suicide is something that the individual cannot will as a universal law, for if he does then everyone dies, or everyone shuns physical pain in this way. This must not be moral at all, and of what use will morality be if all people are dead? More importantly, suicide is not something that we can allow our children to do even if they really want to do it and even if they claim that the situation calls for it. Moreover, suicide is morally wrong because it does not consider the individual as an end. The practical imperative of Kant commands someone in this way: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (Kant 112). This means only one thing, a good act must be directed towards the benefit of man himself, or of the individual. However, in suicide, the person is merely using his body or using himself to gain an end, which does not benefit humanity or him himself in the long run. Thus, suicide is not moral. In fact, Kant said, “He who has it in mind to make a false promise to others sees at once that he wants to make use of another human being merely as a means, without the other at the same time containing in himself the end” (113). Although some would argue that suicide is an act of sacrifice that one person is doing for the sake of the other or for the sake of his neighbor, what he is doing is that he may actually benefit that particular person to whom he dedicates his suicide – but when he leaves grief and sadness behind for friends and family members, it is tantamount to using them ad for not caring about how they would feel if he killed himself. Another reason that suicide is not a moral act is because it is not in harmony with society. According to Kant, “With respect to contingent [or meritorious] duty to oneself, it is not enough that the action does not conflict with humanity in our person as an end in itself; it must also harmonize with it” (Kant 113). Suicide does not agree with society, and more importantly, it cannot harmonize with it, because all society is about life, and suicide is all about death and the cessation of all life. Society is all about achievement while suicide is all about resting in peace. Although there is no law that does not prevent it, the law of morality actually does. One argument against labeling suicide as immoral is that despite all these ideas that condemn suicide as an immoral act, Kant says, “Concerning meritorious duty to others, the natural end that all human beings have is their own happiness” (113). The word “happiness” is the fault of Kant because, subjective as the word is, happiness could mean many different things to many people and it therefore invites the idea of relativity as well as conflict. Nevertheless, Kant may only be assuming in this particular statement that “happiness” as he used in the statement above is all about one’s happiness from one’s acts of altruism, or the deep sense of happiness that a human being feels for helping his fellow. Thus, the happiness one may gain from suicide, if there is any, is not synonymous with this happiness that arises from altruism. Based on the aforementioned discussion, when it comes to labeling suicide as an immoral act, the more adequate argument actually belongs to Bentham, no matter how profound Kant’s philosophy is. Bentham simply defined the morality of an act using utility as a basis – the production of pleasure, the avoidance of pain, and the ideas of fecundity, purity and extent. In fact, Bentham’s principle of “extent” – or the goodness of an action as it affects people – encompasses Kant’s categorical imperative. The reason is that, for Kant, one would say suicide is wrong because he cannot possibly ask his own family members to commit suicide, and Bentham would have agreed. Actually, Bentham would even add, using his principle of “extent,” that not only if one wills his family members to commit suicide that makes suicide wrong, but also even if one does not will suicide as a law but just hurts his family’s feelings if he commits suicide, then that alone and that already makes suicide not moral. For Kant, the basis of morality is the institution of the act as a law, but for Bentham, although the act can be instituted as a law but it hurts another, then it must not be moral. Certainly, the latter makes more sense. Suicide is an immoral act for it does not pass the principle of utility by Bentham nor does it conform to the categorical imperative by Kant. Based on Benthamite utilitarianism, suicide promotes pain and does not exactly make one avoid it for there might still be pain even in the afterlife. Suicide is also not moral because it affects many people or even just at least one person other than the individual himself, and this defines the extent of Bentham’s principle of utility. Moreover, according to Kant, suicide is not moral because it cannot be instituted as a law for it will violate life. It also does not use man as an end but only as a means for it is a selfish act. Lastly, suicide is not in harmony with a society that aims at advancement, achievement and action. Although some would people say that one’s happiness must be the basis of all morality, happiness is relative as a basis and that true happiness is not in willing death for the self or for others. In this discussion, Bentham fared better than Kant for the former encompasses the categorical imperative of the latter, and will not even require the test of the categorical imperative to determine the morality of an act. For Bentham, the mere fact that suicide hurts the individual or his family already constitutes its evil nature. Top of Form Bottom of Form Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. “The Good Will and the Categorical Imperative.” 1785. Trans. Mary Gregor. The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems. Ed. Russ Shafer Landau. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford, 2010. Print. Perry, John & Bratman, Michael (Eds.). “The Principle of Utility: Jeremy Bentham.” Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. Sahakian, William & Sahakian Mabel Lewis. Ideas of the Great Philosophers. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1966. Print. “Suicide rates per 100,000 by country, year and sex.” World Health Organization. 2011 Web. 1 Dec 2013. Read More