Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
David Hume views on suicide
David Hume on liberty and freedom of will
Hume's ethical theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: David Hume views on suicide
Hume also believes that suicide (and therefore euthanasia) is morally permissible a. He believes that the gods have given us the ability to escape pain and suffering. Hume argues that people’s lives are their own, to deal with as they choose, because the gods have given us this power (Messerly). The gods have given us the power to have euthanasia so we are free to do what we want with it. In his writing, On Suicide, he talks about three types of duties: to god, to ourselves, and to others/society, but if suicide doesn’t conflict with these responsibilities then it is not wrong. Hume’s first reason for supporting suicide (and euthanasia) is that is doesn’t conflict with the duty to God. God has granted us the skills necessary to alter nature …show more content…
In terms of duties to others/society, Hume claims that committing suicide does no harm to society, so therefore euthanasia would also do no harm to society. He also says that when we are dead, we no longer get the advantages from society, and therefore no longer have obligations. “If we are not obligated to do a small good for society at great expense to ourselves, then we are not obligated to suffer greatly for some small benefit to society” (Messerly). For example, if someone is old they may retire, thereby no longer contributing to the workforce of society. So the same thing could happen to life. If the continuation of someone’s life is a burden to society, for example having to have around the clock medical care that is very difficult to manage, then ending it should be a positive thing. Hume writes, “I am not obliged to do a small good for society at the expense of a great harm to myself.” As for duties to ourselves, Hume claims that “we have such a strong natural fear of death, which requires an equally strong motive to overcome that fear,” meaning that we do not contemplate the extreme measure of suicide (or euthanasia) lightly and easily
Another reason a patient may opt to euthanasia is to die with dignity. The patient, fully aware of the state he or she is in, should be able choose to die in all their senses as opposed to through natural course. A patient with an enlarged brain tumor can choose to die respectively, instead of attempting a risky surgery that could leave the patient in a worse condition then before the operation, possibly brain-dead. Or a patient with early signs of Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease may wish to be granted euthanization before their disease progresses and causes detrimental loss of sentimental memories. Ultimately it should be the patient’s choice to undergo a risky surgery or bite the bullet, and laws prohibiting euthanasia should not limit the patient’s options.
The position of God and misery is a quite difficult position. Hume the author of this book wanted to show that not everything has to involve a God and it is not reasonable to do so. Hume’s characters resemble points that generally describe opinions of the general population of the Earth. With this he is able to create a dialogue that all people can relate to. But his intention of this book is not to support all opinions but his own.
In terms of the effects that euthanization has society, there are many benefits. The most beneficial aspect of this technology is that it is comforting for family and friends to know that their loved one is no longer suffering from intolerable pain. Although euthanasia is used for all ages, parents have specifically spoken out by saying that “the best parents are the ones who let their children go” (Braw). In today’s society, instant gratification is a priority; people will go to any extent to make a loved one to get what he or she wants. The nature of today’s society is to view an immediate death as an instant resolution to life’s problems. This concept is specifically demonstrated in Belgium; euthanization acts as a way to not only put patients out of their misery but also “to maintain the right population balance” (Frederich). Scholars idealize Belgium as a model for future societies because it has proven to be successful; Euthanasia will likely be used to control the population of overpopulated
In her paper entitled "Euthanasia," Phillipa Foot notes that euthanasia should be thought of as "inducing or otherwise opting for death for the sake of the one who is to die" (MI, 8). In Moral Matters, Jan Narveson argues, successfully I think, that given moral grounds for suicide, voluntary euthanasia is morally acceptable (at least, in principle). Daniel Callahan, on the other hand, in his "When Self-Determination Runs Amok," counters that the traditional pro-(active) euthanasia arguments concerning self-determination, the distinction between killing and allowing to die, and the skepticism about harmful consequences for society, are flawed. I do not think Callahan's reasoning establishes that euthanasia is indeed morally wrong and legally impossible, and I will attempt to show that.
Megan Darnley PHIL-283 May 5, 2014 Compatibilism and Hume. The choices an individual makes are often believed to be by their own doing; there is nothing forcing one action to be done in lieu of another, and the responsibility of one’s actions is on him alone. This idea of Free Will, supported by libertarians and is the belief one is entirely responsible for their own actions, is challenged by necessity, otherwise known as determinism. Those championing determinism argue every action and event is because of some prior cause.
Euthanasia is a subject that society is not just going to let pass by them without society giving their points of view. Euthanasia is just another excuse for physician’s to be able to kill another human life that could still be worth living, just as abortion is seen. As society has grown since ancient times they have come across many more debates and many more reasons why euthanasia so be allowed or not allowed. If society allows such an act of degrading of a life, we will be taking life into our hands and will be leading into a whole different world. The main question that boggles many people’s minds is that if society allows this form of killing to go on then what is society going to let happen next? Is society taking life into our own hands or is our life taking us into its hands?
Euthanasia gives people a choice, rather than facing the degenerative effects of disease or old age. Euthanasia is life or death. The fear of the unknown or what happens afterwards is replaced by the agony of living. If life is too painful and the quality of life is extremely low, humans are left with no choice but to make a choice.
This effect creates a default “negative” to suicide, which must be canceled out by some positive effect. Hippocrates, the father of medicine, was against active euthanasia. In his famous “Hippocratic oath”, a line forbids giving a “deadly drug” [9][11]. During the Medieval times, assisted suicide was illegal. Thomas Aquinas argued that suicide goes against one's own love for themselves and desire for continued existence.
The voluntary active euthanasia is legitimately moral. It is morally right for a person to seek euthanasia because it is their freedom or autonomy to control their own lives. It ends the suffering of the patient without harming other people. Furthermore, it prevents the person to suffer by giving him/her lethal injection or medication that prevents a person to die slowly with pain. On the other hand, the arguments against euthanasia are not sound. A thorough assessment will protect patient who request euthanasia for the benefits of others. A patient who seek for euthanasia does not use him/herself as means, but as ends to respect his/her own humanity. Furthermore, God as a benevolent will not allow a person to suffer which endorse the purpose of euthanasia – to end suffering. Therefore, voluntary active euthanasia should be legalized in the United States.
... feelings" for being a burden or too costly to those of the community who are in difficult circumstances, may become such that they perceive a subtle duty on them to exercise the euthanasia option. The choice may well become a perceived duty. This is especially so when considered in the context of comments by those such as former Governor General, Hon Bill Hayden's comments that “there is a point when the succeeding generations deserve to be disencumbered -to coin a clumsy word - of some unproductive burdens”.
The ultimate goal of Hume’s essay is to “restore men to their native liberty, by examining all the common arguments against Suicide, and showing that that action may be free from imputation of guilt or blame” (On Suicide, p.55). He argues that people’s confusion about the morality of suicide is based on the “superstition being found on false opinion” (On Suicide, p.55) and can only be gone “when true philosophy has inspired juster sentiments of superior powers” (On Suicide, p.55). He states that “if suicide be criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty either to God, our neighbor, or ourselves” (On Suicide, p.55).
In other words, if someone is suffering from depression, they can’t just go to a physician to end their life. This only applies to patients with a disease in which they are going to die in the near future. Some people might think that it’s immoral to kill someone without a natural cause. The goal for Euthanasia is to provide a person with a way to relieve extreme pain or when a person's life is just going downhill for them.
Immanuel Kant holds a deontological, or duty based, ethical view. This means that for something to have moral value it must be done from duty. The basis of this view is the categorical imperative, which Kant explains is to, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (412). We must be able to universalize the act and have no contradictions in order for it to be morally permissible. Another part of this view is the principle of humanity, which states, “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” (415). An act that uses someone as a means to an end is automatically immoral in Kant’s perspective. This ethical system that is the basis for Kant’s view on Euthanasia is very different from Mill’s.
In Appendix I., Concerning Moral Sentiment, David Hume looks to find a place in morality for reason, and sentiment. Through, five principles he ultimately concludes that reason has no place within the concept of morality, but rather is something that can only assist sentiment in matters concerning morality. And while reason can be true or false, those truths or falsities apply to facts, not to morality. He then argues morals are the direct result of sentiment, or the inner feeling within a human being. These sentiments are what intrinsically drive and thus create morality within a being. Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist themselves apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we would feel necessary. They can only guide us towards the final result of moral motivation which (by now it’s painfully clear) is sentiment.
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher known for his ideas of skepticism and empiricism. Hume strived to better develop John Locke’s idea of empiricism by using a scientific study of our own human nature. We cannot lean on common sense to exemplify human conduct without offering any clarification to the subject. In other words, Hume says that since human beings do, as a matter of fact, live and function in this world, observation of how humans do so is imminent. The primary goal of philosophy is simply to explain and justify the reasoning of why we believe what we do.