I based on religion because he does not

I
think Hume’s and Kant’s are similar yet different at the same time.. Hume’s
philosophical approach is basically suggesting that suicide is an act that
you can commit without moral remorse according to the lecture notes on moral
absolutism.  Hume’s views are not based
on religion because he does not believe in religion. Kant’s ethical view on the
other hand implies that some actions are morally worthy, others immoral, and
other are moral neutral according to the lecture notes on deontolgy.

 

Hume argues to the analysis of suicide, “Let us here endeavour to restore men
to their native liberty, by examining all the common arguments against Suicide,
and shewing, that that action may be free from every imputation of
guilt or blame; according to the sentiments of all the antient philosophers. (1. SU 3)” He believes that there is a superstition
preventing us as human beings from committing suicide when we are in pain. Hume
differentiates the laws by which the nature gives control and the laws by which
humans control themselves. Just as nature moves on without reflecting the
interests of humans, so us humans can use the power that has been given to
us using aspects of our own happiness.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

 

Another
aspect of Hume’s argument is that we have been given the power to make such
decision. This is why we set barriers on rivers and create medicine, and have
people who risk their lives daily to save others; it is because we use the
power given to make a difference in this world.

 

 

Lastly, Hume makes is that committing suicide you
are not hurting society. He believes that when we die, we gain nothing out of society,
so therefor we owe nothing to society. What I am stating is supported in the
following text, “If Suicide be
criminal, it must be a transgression of our duty, either to God, our neighbour,
or ourselves. To prove, that Suicide is no transgression of our duty to
God, the following considerations may perhaps suffice. (1.Su 5)” So even if we
were to obligated they would have some sense of restriction.  This
would mean if I were told to do a slight good for humanity but it would be at a
huge price to us then I would not be obligated to hurt because of the small
price paid to help humanity. If I am old and sick I may leave my work, stopping
my giving to humanity. That being said so if I am in a nursing home unable to
walk, speak, feed or dress myself than I shouldn’t feel guilty of committing
suicide because I am now a burden. If things are put into these aspects, then
what makes me believe that I cannot commit suicide? That is the way I believe
Hume see’s this.

 

 

Now,
moving onto Kant and his argument on suicide
and how does the categorical imperative prohibit an act like suicide. Kant was a unique philosopher not only
in the field of ethics but in fundamentally in each area of philosophy. Based
on what I have l grasped in this course the Categorical
Imperative is thought to offer a
way for us as human beings to evaluate moral actions and to make moral
judgments. Realistically it does not say we have to follow the rules to an exact
measure but more to evaluate the actions of which can be morally related. He
created specific formulas to describe the Categorical Imperative.

 

Kant
argues that there can be four formulations to this principle: (2.)

·      The Formula of the Law of Nature: “Act as if the maxim of
your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.”
Law of Universe: “I should never act except in such a way that I can also will
that my maxim should become a universal law.” “There is only one categorical
imperative and it is this: act only according to that maxim whereby you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

·     
Principle
of Humanity “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own
person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never
simply as a means.”

·     
 Formula of autonomy:
will = legislation, “Every rational being must act as if they were a
legislating member of the kingdom of ends.”

·     
“Act only in such a way that one’s maxim is in harmony with a
possible kingdom of ends as a kingdom of nature.” 

From my perspective I believe Kant understood prudently about
what it is that all humans would find reasonable as a guide for human conduct.
I myself from the religious views was told that suicide is a sin per the Bible.
Kant enters at the idea that humans believe these certain acts are wrong
because they cannot will that others would do these things because it would state
the end of society. Kant argued that it could be
formulated in diverse ways, stressing different factors of human thought.

 

In my opinion I can see Hume’s
arguments clearer. I come from a religious background since the moment I was
born. Setting religion aside, I can see Hume’s point of view. Why should we be
condemned to committing suicide? I work in the medical field and a big ethical
view that we learn is quality over quantity. What quality of life does someone
have being bed ridden and suffering in pain or someone who is 100 years old
suffering from aches and pain. How is that fair to someone in pain and agony to
be kept alive? I believe they should have a choice to end their life given the
state of their quality of life. We should commonly respect individual autonomy,
including a person’s choice of when to die. Of course there are exceptions to
certain matters, which would be in circumstances in which an individual’s
mental capabilities are compromised, for example in children or someone who is
mentally impaired.

 

Source:

1.    
Hume,
David. Two Essays. 1777, www.davidhume.org/texts/suis.html.

2.    
Module 3:
Deontology