A School of Philosophy and Suicide
Problem of perception with suicide
School of Philosophy and Suicide
Philosophers’ views regarding suicide
Noteworthy philosophers who supported philosophy of suicide
From absurd to ‘philosophical suicide’
About the text: The Sense of an
Ending
How Udayan’s death is suicide?
Idealizing rationality in Adrian and Udayan’s Suicide
Libertarian views and the right to suicide
Adrian and
Udayan’s Suicide as a philosophical and moral duty
Social, utilitarian and role-based argument
suicide, virtue and life’s meaning
Victory over life – Research Outcome
Victory over life
(KLINEFELTER THE MORALITY OF SUICIDE)
A School of
Philosophy and Suicide
(With reference
to two characters Udayan and Adrian)
Abstract
Have you ever faced your nearer and dearer one's suicide? If yes then
somewhere in your mind you might consider that act as an act of cowardice. Have
you ever thought that this is the only truth or have you tried to stretch your
limits too!
Throughout
history, suicide has evoked an astonishingly wide range of reactions-
bafflement, dismissal, heroic, glorification, sympathy, anger, moral or
religious condemnation but never uncontroversial. It is an object of
multidisciplinary study. Nonetheless, many of the most controversial questions
surrounding the suicide are philosophical. For philosophers- Suicide raises a
host of conceptual, moral and psychological questions.
This paper studies the term suicide with special reference to two major
characters from one Existential - existential Gujarati novel - Amrita and
another one is the Nobel prize winner 2011 English Psychological novel - The
Sense of an Ending. Researcher analyses both the characters and reaches to the
concluding remarks.
Keywords:
Suicide, Udayan, Adrian, Amrita,
The Sense of an Ending, A school of philosophy
Preface:
Contends is believed that suicide is caused by
psych ache. A principal task for contemporary suicidology is to operationalize
the key dimension of psych ache. The prevention of suicide is primarily a
matter of addressing and partially alleviating those frustrated psychological
needs that are driving that person to suicide. This view has some
intuitive appeal. Indeed, what else could ruin a life to the same extent?
Whatever else might interrupt my projects and stand in the way of my desires –
tragic accidents, bad luck, failed relationships, whatever – nothing puts an
end to my pursuits and nothing thwarts the satisfaction of my desires to the
same extent as death puts an end to my pursuits and thwarts my desires.
Characterizing the ‘Suicide’
Suicide
is the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and
intentionally. (Suicide)
Suicide
as a symptom- both of individual psychopathology and social disorganization. (Cholbi, Suicide)
Throughout
history, suicide has evoked an astonishingly wide range of reactions-
bafflement, dismissal, heroic, glorification, sympathy, anger, moral or
religious condemnation but never uncontroversial. It is an object of
multidisciplinary study. Nonetheless, many of the most controversial questions
surrounding the suicide are philosophical. For philosophers- Suicide raises a
host of conceptual, moral and psychological questions.
(1) What makes a person’s behaviour
suicidal?
(2) What motivates such behaviour?
(3) Is suicide morally permissible
or even morally required in some extraordinary circumstances?
(4) Is suicidal behaviour rational?
We often judge that suicide is
bad for the person who dies – that my death, for instance, will be bad for me
when it occurs. It is not easy, however, to explain, justify, or defend this
judgment. As Epicurus argued more than 2000 years ago, death is ‘nothing to us’
because
‘when we exist death is not present, and when death is present, we do not exist.’ (Letter to Menoeceus, 124–125)
Problem of perception with suicide
There is problem of perception with suicide. Actually suicide itself is
considered morally wrong but this can never be so.
It intricates issues about how to describe and explain human action.
Views about suicide often incorporate, sometimes prudential or moral
justifiability of suicide. Suicide still carries strongly negative subtext on
the whole- we exhibit a greater willingness to categorize self-killing intended
to avoid one’s just as deserts as suicides than self-killing intended to
benefit others.
The Problem of Perception is that if illusions
and hallucinations are possible, then perception, as we ordinarily understand
it, is impossible. The Problem is animated by two central arguments: the
argument from illusion and the argument from hallucination. When we are talking
about suicide, there are several problems of perception with suicide. These
are:
- Moral problem
- Religious problem
- Historical western thoughts
- Scientific problem
If a purely descriptive account of suicide is possible, where should it begin?While it is tempting to say that suicide is any self-caused death, this account is vulnerable to obvious counter examples- An individual who knows the health risks of smoking or of skydiving but willfully engages in these behaviors and dies as a result could be causally responsible for her own death but not to have died by suicide.
If a
purely descriptive account of suicide is possible, where should it begin?
While it is tempting to say that suicide is any self-caused death, this
account is vulnerable to obvious counter examples- An individual who knows the
health risks of smoking or of skydiving but willfully engages in these
behaviors and dies as a result could be causally responsible for her own death
but not to have died by suicide.
Self-destruction
self-cause death is not suicide.
Self-cause death is not suicide. Additionally,
selfishness is not suicide. This can not prove suicide is wrong just because it
produces it produces psychological reactions. ‘Role Obligation’ however, even
if suicide is harmful to family members or loved ones, this does not support an
absolute prohibition on suicide.
School of Philosophy and Suicide
Common philosophical opinion of suicide since modernization reflected a
spread in cultural beliefs of western societies that suicide is immoral
and unethical. One popular argument is that many of the reasons for
committing suicide —such as depression, emotional pain, or economic
hardship—are transitory and can be ameliorated by therapy and through making
changes to some aspects of one's life.
There are
two main philosophical issues regarding suicide:
Suicide: A Philosophy
Edwin
Schneidman defines suicide as “the conscious
act of self-induced annihilation, best understood as a multidimensional malaise
in a needful individual who defines an issue for which the act is perceived as
the best solution”
What is
to do something intentionally?
Philosophers’ views regarding suicide
Philosopher and psychiatrist goes further, arguing that suicide is the most basic right of all. If freedom is self-ownership—ownership over one's own life and body—then the right to end that life is the most basic of all. If others can force you to live, you do not own yourself and belong to them.
Noteworthy philosophers who supported philosophy of suicide
Can anyone ever have a good reason to commit
suicide? Can it ever be morally permissible to commit suicide? John and Ken
start by doing a conceptual analysis of suicide. Not all self-killings are
suicides. For instant, accidental killings and a soldier throwing himself onto
an exploding grenade to save her fellow soldiers are not suicides. John points
out that the paradigm case for suicide is someone who kills herself due to the
suffering, despair or pain she has.
According
to Durkheim…
From
absurd to ‘philosophical suicide’
|
According
to Durkheim… |
The Sanctity of life
Sanity of life means… life itself is scared so killing the self becomes
wrong itself. Killing is wrong itself is moral sentiments. The sanctity of life
view must hold that life itself wholly independent of the happiness of
individual whose life it is. Many philosophers reject the notion that life it
is intrinsically valuable, since it is suggesting. If the value of person’s
life is measured by its likely quality, then suicide may be permissible when
that quality is low. It might be insult but to end one’s life before its
natural end is not necessarily an insult to the value of life.
In moral philosophy- this is the normative ethical theory that the
morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or
wrong under a series of rules rather than based on the consequences of the
action.
Here, Suicide goes beyond the deontological argument from the sanctity
of life.
Finally, it is not obvious that adequate respect for the sanctity of
human life prohibits ending a life, whether by suicide or other means.
The simplest moral outlook on suicide holds that it is necessarily wrong
because human life is sacred. Though this position is often associated with
religious thinkers, Ronald Dworkin (1993)
points out that atheists may appeal to this claim as well. According to this
‘sanctity of life’ view, human life is inherently valuable and precious, demanding
respect from others and reverence for oneself. (Cholbi Suicide)
In moral
philosophy- this is the normative ethical theory that the morality of on action
should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series
of rules rather than based on the consequences of the action.
About the text: Amrita
Amrita (અમૃતા), also spelled Amruta, is a
1965 Gujarati novel by Raghuveer Chaudhari. Although criticized for its highly
Sanskritised language and lengthy metaphysical discussion, it is regarded as a
landmark in the development of the experimental novel in modern Gujarati
literature. It has been referred to as a reflective existentialist novel.
Spanning 18 chapters, the
novel is divided into three sections: Prashnartha (The Question Mark),
Pratibhav (The Response), and Niruttar (The Unanswered). Each section begins
with a quote, respectively from Nietzsche, Maitreyi, and Gandhiji.
Amrita has been described
as a reflective existentialist novel.
The novel depicts the inner
and outer lives of three existentialist characters: two men, Aniket and Udayan;
and one woman, Amrita. The love triangle between these protagonists serves as
an instrument with which to explore existentialism through narrative
description of inner and outer experience as the three struggle to come to
grips with the meaning of their lives.
The story follows a love
triangle between three characters, Amrita, Udayan and Aniket.
About the text: The Sense
of an Ending
By an acclaimed writer at the height of his powers, The Sense of an Ending extends a streak of extraordinary books that began with the best-selling Arthur & George and continued with Nothing to Be Frightened Of and, most recently, Pulse.
This intense novel follows a middle-aged man as he contends with a past he has never much thought about - until his closest childhood friends return with a vengeance, one of them from the grave, another maddeningly present. Tony Webster thought he'd left all this behind as he built a life for himself, and by now his marriage and family and career have fallen into an amicable divorce and retirement. But he is then presented with a mysterious legacy that obliges him to reconsider a variety of things he thought he'd understood all along, and to revise his estimation of his own nature and place in the world.
A novel so compelling that it begs to be read in a single sitting, with stunning psychological and emotional depth and sophistication, The Sense of an Ending is a brilliant new chapter in Julian Barnes's oeuvre.
Before analyzing Adrian and Udayan’s suicide as philosophical let’s
assume that…
(1) What
if instead of Adrian, Tony had committed suicide?
(2) Is there any chance of happening this? If yes, Is there any possibility
that it would not been out of unhappiness?
(3) If Tony commit suicide at the end of the novel out of remorse, is it really
possible to look at philosophically?
(4) What
if instead of Udayan, Aniket had committed suicide?
(here
this question reaches to much depth as Aniket is not character like Tony,
Aniket’s philosophy towards life is also quite rational)
(5) Is
there any chance of happening this this?
(6) Is it possible that it would not been out of unhappiness because it
is quite difficult to look at by wearing this lens as it is also difficult to
assume even as it is nearly impossible to character like Aniket to reach state
where suicide becomes philosophically compulsion?
How Udayan’s death is suicide?
Any of the reader of Gujarati novel- Amrita, Udayan is one of mysterious
characters who doesn’t commits suicide directly. So, before analyzing Udayan’s
suicide as philosophical suicide, let’s discuss how Udayan’s death is suicide
only!
He doesn’t commit suicide directly and apparently but his making of choice to meet patients of Radio Active at Japan is accepting
the killing of self. His denial to
medical treatment also indirectly signifies towards suicide. His
behavior in car when sunlight irritates him yet he keeps mum in front of
Amrita. He does not commit suicide but invites or just waits for his death by
indirect acceptance of killing of the self. Thus, Udayan ultimately chooses not to live.
Idealizing rationality in Adrian and Udayan’s Suicide
Looking from Kantians’ view, Adrian and Udayan’s suicide might claim
that suicidal choices must be respected if those choices are autonomous that is
if an individual chooses to end then like on the basis of reasons that one
acknowledges as relevant to her situation.
What if
Adrian and Udayan chose it out of rationality?
The philosopher must be cautious not to confuse his or her
philosophizing about suicide- which is an attempt to bring maximum rationality
to bear, with choosing suicide as a cause of action because it is not possible
for an act to be moral without being further idealized as rational! Thus, Udayan and Adrian both have even moral permissibility. It depends on how these questions are ought to be answered (Peretz
The Illusion of 'Rational' Suicide). Both kill their selves but not out of emotional force but they justify
also and with their own responsibility So, it’s not out of carelessness and emotional outburst.
Libertarian views and the right to suicide
In this view point, here it permits. Each and every person has right to
live or not to live. IT’s idea that we own our bodies and hence are morally
permitted to dispose of them as we wish. Our relation to body is as a property.
For example,
What’s wrong if any woman is in need of money and owns it by the means
of prostitution – but society, religion and morals will prove it wrong!
Adrian
and Udayan’s Suicide as a philosophical and moral duty
He has dominated ethical discussion of suicide. Utilitarian’s have given
particular attention to the questions of end-of-life euthanasia- suggesting
that at the very least- those with painful terminal illness have right to
voluntary euthanasia. Yet, utilitarian views holds that we have a moral duty to
maximize happiness- from which it follows that when all act of suicide will
produce more happiness than will remaining alive then that suicide is not
morally permitted but morally required.
Death with dignity
Here question arises of End v/s Conclusion. Adrian and Udayan’s suicide
will be tempting to say that suicide is any self-caused death, this account is
vulnerable to obvious counterexamples. If we refuse to adopt the notion of
rational suicide of Adrian and Udayan, we fail to honor the moral imperative of
allowing individuals intolerable and irremediable circumstances their
fundamental right to die. Both are cautious and not confuse in philosophizing
about suicide which is an attempt to bring maximum rationality to bear, with
choosing suicide as a cause of action.
‘This conclusion is made stronger if the right to life is inalienable-
since in order to kill myself. I must first renounce my inalienable right to
life, which I cannot do.’ (Feinberg- 1978)
Social, utilitarian and role-based argument
Utilitarian views holds that we have a moral duty to maximize happiness-
from which it follows that when all act of suicide will produce more happiness
than will remaining alive- then that suicide is not just permitted but
required!
Thus, Adrian and Udayan require an honor. Here, suicide itself becomes
an honor. Adrian and Udayn fulfil moral duty.
suicide, virtue and life’s meaning
‘Bogen’ observes that even when we have adequately determined that a given act
of suicide is morally and philosophically permissible, question remains about
whether that act represents ‘the best way to live and to end one’s life’. They both solve
major conflict between knowing and acting on it.
Do you find meaning even in the self-killing of
Udayan and Adrian?
The
philosopher must be cautious not to confuse his or her philosophizing about
suicide- which is an attempt to bring maximum rationality to bear, with
choosing suicide as a cause of action. If we refuse to adopt the notion of
rational suicide, we fail to honor the moral imperative of allowing individuals
intolerable and irremediable circumstances their fundamental right to die.
Victory over life – Research Outcome
Thus, from above discussions, analysis and research, researcher tend to
say that the suicide is not act of cowardice. Of course, whenever emotional
outburst and carelessness leads to suicide forces us not to believe upon
philosophy of suicide but here, in the both the cases of Adrian and Udayan
suicide has proved not only justifiable but also morally correct, permissible
and inevitable answer.
There are different philosophers
who have demonstrated various positions on the act of suicide. This has
produced strong dichotomy on philosophical grounds. Some of them accepted
suicide, while others condemned the act.
Researcher would love to end this research with this quote which defines
Sucide as answer to even philosophy too!
“Some
dispositions or temperaments may never be morally comfortable with such a
choice like suicide, which they would regard as cowardly, disloyal, or
fundamentally irrational. Within the framework of an ethics of virtue similar
to the one sketched here, the act of suicide may indeed be the most courageous,
loving, or flirting thing to do, and for that reason morally correct.”
(KLINEFELTER
THE MORALITY OF SUICIDE)
References:
• “Suicide.”
Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suicide.
Work
Cited:
•Barnes,
Julian. The Sense of an Ending. Vintage, 2017.
•Cholbi, Michael. “Suicide.” Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy, Stanford University, 21 July 2017,
plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/.
• Kaufmann,
Walter. “Existentialism and Death.” Chicago Review, vol. 13, no. 2,
1959, pp. 75–93. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25293517. Accessed 24
Apr. 2021.
•Kehinde,
Obasola, and Omomia O. Austin. “PHILOSOPHICAL PERCEPTIONS OF SUICIDE AND
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SANCTITY OF LIFE.” Global Journal of Arts Humanities
and Social Sciences, vol. Vol.2, Dec. 2014, pp. 47–62.,
r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrPhmq_aIRgMH4Ang27HAx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNzZzMEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1619319104/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.eajournals.org%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2fPhilosophical-Perceptions-of-Suicide-and-Implications-for-the-Sanctity-of-Life.pdf/RK=2/RS=kbj5bw6vy53zsVs40ZYZ2HLanpA-.
•KLINEFELTER,
DONALD S. “THE MORALITY OF SUICIDE.” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, vol. 67, no. 3, 1984, pp. 336–354. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/41178307. Accessed 24 Apr. 2021.
•Noon,
Georgia. “On Suicide.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 39,
no. 3, 1978, pp. 371–386. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2709383.
Accessed 24 Apr. 2021.
• Peretz,
David. “The Illusion of 'Rational' Suicide.” The Hastings Center Report,
vol. 11, no. 6, 1981, pp. 40–42. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/3560543. Accessed 24 Apr. 2021.
•Wenquan,
WU. On the Motif of Death in Julian Barnes’ The Sense of an Ending.
Canadian Social Science, 2015, r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrxiDI9jYRgCQoAYBG7HAx.;_ylu=Y29sbwNzZzMEcG9zAzEEdnRpZAMEc2VjA3Ny/RV=2/RE=1619328445/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fcore.ac.uk%2fdownload%2fpdf%2f236295907.pdf/RK=2/RS=JXsK7O3y460uhoVk5YnzMoW9yOg-.
No comments:
Post a Comment