Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

\title {Central Themes in Philosophy \\ Lecture 17}
 
\maketitle
 

Lecture 17:

Central Themes

\def \ititle {Lecture 17}
\def \isubtitle {Central Themes}
\begin{center}
{\Large
\textbf{\ititle}: \isubtitle
}
 
\iemail %
\end{center}

Q

What, if anything, is ethically wrong with suicide?

Is suicide intrinsically ethically impermissible?

‘It is often unclear whether a certain act counts as suicide ... Let us say that an agent commits suicide if he dies as a consequence of acting with the intention of bringing about his own death. This allows that suicide can be either by act or by omission. It thus treats as an instance of suicide the act of a person who dies as a result of refusing a life-saving medical treatment on the ground that he wished to die rather than to continue to live’ \citep{mcmahan:2002_ethics}.
According to \citet[p.~576]{vanorden:2010_interpersonal}, suicide is ‘self-initiated, potentially injurious behaviour’ with a fatal outcome in the ‘presence of an intent to die’.
These characterisations of suicide are regarded as only roughly right as they would appear to include cases that are commonly not thought of as suicide, such as the deaths of those who have jumped from high places in a flaming building \citep[p.~27]{joiner:2007_why}.
independently of it’s effects on other people
is it bad?

McMahan gives a negative answer:

‘There are [...] no good reasons for thinking that suicide [is] [intrinsically] wrong—that is, wrong for reasons other than those concerned with merely contingent effects’

\citep[p/~463]{mcmahan:2002_ethics}. (Note that McMahan’s view is shaped by a degree of ignorance about the causes of suicide.)

McMahan 2002, p. 463

preliminary : law

‘competent patients have been permitted to refuse even life-saving treatment ‘for any reason, rational or irrational, or for no reason at all’ (Re MB [1997], para. 16)’

\citep[p.~54]{freyenhagen:2013_hidden}.

Freyenhagen & O’Shea, 2013 p. 54

Sectioning under the Mental Health Act, 1983

Why is this relevant?

Approx 95% of suicides suffer from mental disorders diagnosed by psychological autopsy; and the others may suffer subclinical, or undiagnosed, mental disorders.

‘The vast majority of people who die by suicide (i.e., approximately 95%) suffer from mental disorders \citep{cavanagh:2003_psychological}—and it is quite possible that the remaining 5% suffer from subclinical variants of mental disorders or presentations of disorders not detected by methodologies such as psychological autopsies (Ernst et al., 2004)’ \citep[p.~577]{vanorden:2010_interpersonal}.
This point about law is also a point for my next preliminary, causes

preliminary : known risk factors

  • mental disorders
  • previous suicide attempts
  • social isolation
  • physical illness
  • unemployment
  • family conflict

van Order et al, 2010 table 1

these are factors with >15 studies demonstrating associations

preliminary : why?

the Interpersonal Theory (van Orden et al, 2010)

1. Suicidal desire and suicidal capability are distinct.

2. Suicidal desire is characteristically caused by thwarted belongingness and perceived burdensomeness.

3. Suicidal capability is built through experiences which habituate to pain and events which reduce fear of death.

Never trust a philosopher

‘Most people who desperately want to die are capable of killing themselves.’

McMahan, 2002 p. 460

(This is not merely false: the converse is true, fortunately.)

Never trust a philosopher

‘Most people who desperately want to die are capable of killing themselves.’

McMahan, 2002 p. 460

(This is not merely false: the converse is true, fortunately.)

According to \citet[p.~460]{mcmahan:2002_ethics}, ‘Most people who desperately want to die are capable of killing themselves’. In fact the opposite is true: most people who desperately want to die are \emph{incapable} of killing themselves \citep{vanorden:2010_interpersonal}.
Let me return to this ...

Cavanagh et al, 2003 figure 1

This renders our question about the ethical permissibility of suicide not very relevant: suicide is a mental health issue rather than an ethical one. So calling our discussion ‘applied ethics’ would be a stretch. We have to recognise that our interest is philosophical rather than practical.

Q

What, if anything, is ethically wrong with suicide?

Is suicide intrinsically ethically impermissible?

 

An Inalienable Right to Life

 
\section{An Inalienable Right to Life}
 
\section{An Inalienable Right to Life}

1. In order for me to kill myself, I must renounce my right to life.

[\emph{Aside}: The notion of a right that we’re discussing here is also relevant to the Responsibility for Global Poverty theme from earlier lectures: recall that \citet{pogge:2005_world}’s argument hinges on the idea that poor people’s human rights are being violated.]

An entitlement ‘not to be killed or allowed to diecan be claimed against all other private individuals and groups forforbearance and performance, and against the state for its enforcement’ (Feinberg, 1978 p. 103).

‘Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states’ \citep{wenar:2020_rights}.
So your right to life is an entitlement you have to live. What does this amount to?
‘by "the right to life" we can mean a right not to be killed or allowed to die which can be claimed against all other private individuals and groups for their forbearance and performance, and against the state for its enforcement’ \citep[p.~103]{feinberg:1978_voluntary}.

human right?

What does it mean to say that this is a human right? ‘The right to life, as I shall understand it here, also belongs to that subclass of moral rights that are said, in virtue of their fundamentally important, indeed essential, connection with human well-being, to belong equally and unconditionally to all human beings, simply in virtue of their being human. It is, therefore, what the United Nations called a human right.’ \citep[p.~97]{feinberg:1978_voluntary}.

claim right

Anything else I need to know?
‘The right to life [...] is generally thought, at least in our time, to be \emph{a claim-right} as opposed to a right in the sense of mere liberty, privilege, or absence of duty to refrain ... A claim-right [...] is a liberty correlated with another person's duty (or all other persons' duties) not to interfere.’ \citep[p.~95]{feinberg:1978_voluntary}.

1. In order for me to kill myself, I must renounce my right to life.

But:

2. The right to life is inalienable.

Inalienable right: You cannot surrender, transfer or voluntarily give it up.
Note that saying a right is inalienable is not the same thing as saying that it cannot be forfeitted. It is logically consistent to combine the view that all humans have an inalienable right to life with the view that those who kill others thereby forfeit their rights to life.

Therefore:

3. I cannot rightly renounce my right to life.

Therefore:

4. Therefore I cannot rightly kill myself, nor may you help.

‘how could my suicide violate my own right to life? Is that right a claim against myself as well as against others? Do I treat myself unjustly if I deliberately end my life for what seem to me the best reasons?’ \citep[p.~119]{feinberg:1978_voluntary}.
Apparently Aquinas thought the idea that suicide violated a person’s own rights was incoherent.
\citep{cholbi:2017_suicide} comments on this argument: ‘It is at least possible that no one has the right to determine the circumstances of a person’s death!’

1. The right to life is discretionary, not mandatory.

A ‘\emph{mandatory right} confers no discretion whatever on its possessor: only one way of exercising it is permitted. It leaves one path open to him but no genuine "option" between paths. It imposes a correlative duty on others to provide that path and leave it unobstructed [...]. If I have a mandatory right to do X then it follows logically that I have [...] a duty to do X. In the case of mandatory rights, duty and right are entirely coincident.’ \citep[p.~105]{feinberg:1978_voluntary}.
‘Any discretionary right to something is a right to take it or leave it, as one chooses’ \citep[p.~105]{feinberg:1978_voluntary}.
Plausible examples of mandatory rights: the right of a child to education; the right of a citizen to serve as a juror.
‘I have a \emph{discretionary right} in respect to X when I have an open option to X or not to X correlated with the duties of others not to interfere with my choice’ \citep[p.~105]{feinberg:1978_voluntary}.
Property rights (if they exist) are plausibly discretionary rights.

Therefore:

2. In suicide I am exercising the right, not renouncing it.

What is being rejected if the right side is true?

Never trust a philosopher

‘Another way in which people frequently articulate their opposition to killing is to claim that it violates the victim’s right to life.

But, as many rights theorists have pointed out, rights can be waived.

Look, no citations! Sure sign of ignorance.

[...] Hence suicide and voluntary euthanasia cannot be objectionable on the ground that they violate the right to life’

\citep[.~464]{mcmahan:2002_ethics}.
Note that McMahan misrepresents ‘rights theorists’ (clue: he gives no citations) and appears unaware of the (elementary) distinction between mandatory and discretionary rights.

McMahan, 2002 p. 464

Never trust a philosopher

‘Another way in which people frequently articulate their opposition to killing is to claim that it violates the victim’s right to life.

But, as many rights theorists have pointed out, rights can be waived.

[...] Hence suicide and voluntary euthanasia cannot be objectionable on the ground that they violate the right to life’

McMahan, 2002 p. 464

Is the right to life discretionary or mandatory?

Feinberg: ‘paternalist’

Unlike Feinberg, do not mistake an insult for an argument!

Q

What, if anything, is ethically wrong with suicide?

Is suicide intrinsically ethically impermissible?

Yes, if the right to life is mandatory.

Maybe not, if the right to life is discretionary.

Why can’t we make the stronger claim that it is not impermissible? [don’t say: because there may be things other than the right to life which make it impermisible]

opinions

There is the internet for that.

It’s not about you.

conclusion

In conclusion, ...

Q

What, if anything, is ethically wrong with suicide?

Is suicide intrinsically ethically impermissible?

Feinberg, 1978

Yes, if the right to life is mandatory.

Maybe not, if the right to life is discretionary.

McMahan, 2002 : no (you may rationally judge it will make your life better)

[coming next]:

Velleman, 1999, 2008 : suicide is ethically impermissible if done for the reason that it will make your life better