Deontologist approach to suicide

Deontologist approach to suicide

1. Opposite of Hume which was Consequentialist driven

2. Duties to self:

   • Arguments against
     • Duties seem to have corresponding rights
       • Can we have a right against oneself which is a duty for oneself to enforce?
         • Wrong conflation between terms moral and legal duties/rights
         • Can divide ourselves into two halves: Self and higher, aspirational self (potential). Obliged to do better through conscience.
           • Because there is an authority and inner-conflict, same person can have right and duty
     • Assumed right-holder can release a duty-holder from his/her duty (make void contract)
       • Could I not just relieve myself from my duties if I'm the right-holder?
         • Can we relieve ourselves from moral duties? Are they releaseable?
     • Duties to oneself are not real duties
       • They are probably just mistaken for duties to others
       • Is one's self respect not a matter of morality . Not a functioning moral agent if no self-respect

3. Velleman:

   • Arguing against two key principles:
     • Person has right to make life shorter in order to make it better (If doing so makes it better for him)
       • Right to end life on grounds no longer worth living
       • ATTACK AGAINST HUME'S ARGUMENT!
     • There is a presumption in favour of deferring to person's judgement on subject of their own good
     • Why might people agree with these principles?
       • Appeal to experience
         • Generally people are best judges of own good
           • May argue that they are not of full mental capacity though
             • Depression or dementia
       • People are autonomous agents who have right to live how they wish
         • Keeping autonomy is more important than agent making good decision
   • Argument:
     • Premise 1
       • Some values are independent of personal interest (PI).
         • Not all values are personal in sense that they are dependent on benefits or harm to a particular person
           • Some values are just there
       • Argument for Premise 1
         • PI's matter either in themselves (categorical and unconditional) or because of something else (hypothetical or conditional)
           • PI's only have hypothetical or conditional value
             • In order to have hypothetical or conditional values, there must be a categorical or unconditional value to avoid regress problem
               • Something is of categorical value, namely persons (moral agents)
                 • PI's matter because and insofar as persons matter
                   • We value our interests as we value oursleves
                 • The categorical value within humans is dignity
                   • Kantian concept
                     • Kant says we have it in virtue of our 'rational nature'
                       • Rational nature is partly to do with making our means meet their ends
                     • Thought morality is the respect for the dignity of persons
                   • Interest independent value embodies in every person
                   • Autonomy requires us to respect others dignity (hence why Velleman endorses 2nd principle)
               • Leads to regress as always have to look for the condition or hypothesis of a condition or hypothesis etc.
             • Why they cannot have categorical value (matter within themselves)
               • People who lack self-respect do not accord value to own interest as one has to value themselves first
               • If one does't value people, they don't value that persons interests and won't take values into account if don't value that person
     • Premise 2
       • Suicide on grounds of the benefits one will obtain or harms they will avoid violates these interest independent values
         • This is morally bad
     • Premise 3
       • Suicide is wrong solely on the grounds of the benefits obtained or harms avoided
         • Could one not argue that there is no value that no-one benefits from?
           • All values need beneficials otherwise they are not valued?
             • But we value things that we don't benefit from like telling the truth is a value that can have bad consequences if told and not necessarily benefit us
   • Dignity
     • Cannot be dependent on values so cannot ask me what I think of my own dignity
       • Dignity is not a possession; everyone person has it but nobody owns it
     • Is a value we must live up to
       • Can have duties to ourselves as it is a duty to 'humanity in ourselves'
         • Secular version of Sancity of life'
           • Irreplaceable value
     • If one show's disrespect for dignity, they undermine dignity for all humanity, not just themselves
       • My benefits and gains may be only my concern but dignity is a concern for everyone

4. Deontology, dignity and suicide:

   • Suicide is wrong as trades a categorical value of dignity in for interest
     • Sacrificing for less
   • Must respect dignity where ever it exists; cannot be maximised like consequentialism
   • Kantian think about the dignity of persons, not the pain they are going through
     • Pain matters only if it destroys the person where they are not a functioning moral agent because they become the pain
       • Only interests become to remove pain
         • Can commit suicide in this case but cannot commit it on basis of cost/benefit analysis... has to be because no longer a person
       • Dementia can matter too as undermines dignity