nature.It could be argued then that those in the womb are not able to suffer neither pain nor happiness. Then take for example another opposite of the original argument. How would the rule follow if one were already in the final stages of a tormented life and suddenly won the lottery? If his misfortunes and tragedies in life were attributed to money, wouldn’t he then be transferred again into a state of mind so different from the original? Would this cause him to take his own life, beforehand destined to recycle the condemning symptoms before suicide?Another point Hume discusses is the injustice in ruling suicide as criminal. He describes this point reducing all things to their basic nature in reality. “…two distinct principles of the material and animal world, continually encroach upon each other, and mutually retard or forward each others operations.” In essence, what Hume is saying here is that man depends upon the “inanimate,” in ways of direction and hindrance, and the inanimate consequently is directed by man. Even thought the nature of the two principles is opposite, they are codependent. He applies this to the argument of suicide by showing that it cannot be criminal to disrupt the nature of one’s life by taking it if it is not as equally disruptive to alter the nature of other things. The example used is altering the path of a river. It disrupts the original nature of the river but holds to the constant that change is inevitable. I would agree with Hume on that point. We, as humans, take for advantage the codependence of man and the inanimate. Our government decides what parts of the nature of things to disrupt and alter. God did give us free will and the physical ability to take our own lives, regardless of merit. Who is to say what level of disruption to nature any one action has, whether suicide or cutting down trees to make room for a halfway house? How is one acti...
