on considered to be less disruptive than the other? I think that in reality it is not that one action is considered less disruptive than the other, and therefore justified, but rather that the disruption caused by the latter action is simply not considered. If it is considered than the level of consideration we place on actions varies respectively to the action itself. “’Tis impious, says the modern European superstition, to put a period (suicide) to our own life, and thereby rebel against our creator; and why not impious, say I, to build houses, cultivate the ground, or sail upon the ocean” The actions we carry out then, Hume argues, are then all either “equally innocent, or equally criminal.”One aspect of suicide Hume failed to mention when speaking of suicide and its criminality in society is the subsequent effect of making it criminal. I believe that a motive for making suicide criminal is prevention. It is true that it does not make much sense. How is one to be arrested and convicted for the criminal action of suicide if one has already committed the crime? The sentence would have to be given at the gravesite.Going back to God’s role in the nature of things, the opposing argument is that all causes in life are a result of the guidance and direction of God, nothing in nature happens without his approval and coexistence with the cause. Hume responds with simplicity by saying that if that argument is true than since suicide is an action in nature, and God has approval over everything in nature, it follows that suicide could not occur without his consent. He’s right. If God did not approve of the idea of suicide, then why are we instilled with the ability to carry out the action?A final argument Hume presents is that at times suicide, dependent upon our state of mind and body, is “a duty to ourselves.” I think that he is stating that it is our duty to ourselves if we a...
