“What gives man mastery over himself is free will. So he may licitly manage his own life in respect of everything that contributes to it; but his passage out of this life to a happier one is not subject to his own free will but to the authority of God.”
– Aquinas
The topic of suicide is multifaceted and a certain level of humility is required in discussing it over a few pages. It would be naïve to expect a panacea, a remedy simply by invoking a couple of ideas. But nor should one think that we are dealing with a lost cause. Such a deterministic outlook was shared by many who have ended their lives or have tried to, and many who possibly entertain the thought.
The aim of this short essay is to sketch a distinction between two contributions on the matter adduced by Kant, arguably the greatest philosopher to have lived and Aquinas. Moreover, I will argue that Aquinas provides the agent with a set of tenets that are superior to those of Kant’s.
In that regards, while both seek to deter the agent from ending his life via different techniques, it is Aquinas’ theory that obtains immunity from possible charges of injecting arbitrary notions which could undermine the theory and render it self-defeating. Suicide ideation is not necessarily to be thought of as the actual act being performed; rather it is to be treated as a preparation for a possible act. The ideation takes place in the mind and it isn’t as reactionary nor as deterministic as many might think. Whether ideation emerges from physiological makeup or not, is not the focus of this essay; needless to say, those who insist on treating the body (neurophysiology) as being the surest way to ameliorate the force it seemingly bears upon the content of the mind, need to realize that present anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication only provide emotional stability without eliminating the ideation, the thought process. Thus while the effort isn’t entirely futile, it is insufficient.
An exploration of ideation won’t be the task of this essay however a theory that tackles it will. The topic of suicide needs more than ailments for the body, more than equilibrium in neurotransmitters, more than hobbies, more than culture, all of whom have been shown to be insufficient and secondary to the main legislating origin (or at least the locus where the divine law is infused in man) , the mind. The objective of a cogent theory that seeks to tackle the topic of suicide ideation isn’t merely a theoretical game; it is to enable our minds to adapt via preparation. The right theory bears a strong force on the behavioral output. It could function as a mental module that activates in moments of intolerable insecurity perhaps, disappointment, overwhelming circumstances, to convince us to continue to function; it is this sort of adaptive mechanism one can only hope to accomplish.
In terms of practical and theoretical success, the two theories presented by Kant and Aquinas cannot have equal predictive power; by invoking the Absolute as the origin of the law, Aquinas’ theory confers a greater likelihood of success than Kant’s. It is this particular feature that sets them apart. Kant’s argument is inadequate in a number of aspects given its arbitrary origin, its inapplicability to certain categories of people such as addicts for instance, adolescents, yet my target will be its arbitrary origin.
If Physics seek to either formulate or discover laws in the universe, Kant takes up the challenge of mirroring such effort by seeking universal moral laws applicable to all human beings. He finds it that the only way to accomplish this sense of universality is by also finding formulas which can grade the value of a maxim. Kant is careful not to neglect the necessary characteristics of man in order to be able to conceive of the laws and formulas he seeks to build. Kant highlights three: reasoning, autonomy and will. What would such formulas look like? A two step formula would be what he calls the categorical imperative: act only on that maxim which you would at the same time will into universal law and is not self contradictory. Thus, each maxim you can think of should be subjected to this tightly knit imperative.
Let’s take up the example of suicide. Should this be a possible maxim to follow? Terminating one’s life is rejected by the formula on both grounds. According to the formula aforementioned, the first step would be to see if killing yourself is a maxim you’d wish for the rest of the world to perform. Evidently this would be problematic since this would be no less than a lethal prescription where you’d encourage on mass killing. Secondly, among other maxims you can find the notion of loving yourself. But in terminating your life, rather than affirming this love you’d reject it, negate it, thereby lending your maxim in a contradiction. A person who truly respects the maxim of self-love seeks possibilities to improve one’s life rather than terminate it. Given the ability of reason to formulate maxims and the principle of autonomy to enact these, Kant thinks we all have a duty to abide by subjecting our will to these moral standards. Kant’s theory employs the concept of duty defined as “the necessity for action from respect for [universal] law” to obtain a regulatory system whereby the will (which is the ability of man to act) is guided to perform good actions. While autonomy enables us to choose to act freely, the notion of duty prevents us from making decisions outside the regulatory system. Crassly put, just because you have autonomy, it doesn’t follow that you can just make foolish unregulated decisions.
But this could be the weak pillar in Kant’s argument. If maxims are instantiated by humans themselves, he postulates that all will agree to the good. Kant ignores the fact that different cultures might have opposing ideas of what constitutes the good, what the standard should be. While he expects that all rational beings will subject their maxims to the categorical imperative, it is highly doubtful that other formulas or even the application of the categorical imperative will be the same. Self governance based on humanly derived maxims can function up to a point. If we leave it up to people to make up these maxims along with formulas, the nature of formulas and laws are no less than arbitrary. People will feel disinclined to let others make rules for them to abide by, or at least the thrust of such a view won’t be sufficiently adequate to convince people to abide by it.
How many times have we witnessed people importing foreign ideas which conflict with the ones we’ve set for ourselves? One needs to look no further than the code of honor of samurai which betrays Kant’s formulation. It can enable suicide and make it coherent to do so since honor is the notion that warrants it. We need something stronger than mere human patented formulations, something pre-established, a priori, something already built into the system rather than something we excogitate by ourselves along the way.
Thomas Aquinas enters the stage. Recall Kant believes that man’s constitution consists of autonomy and rational ability to use autonomy to succumb to duties. By means of this constitution Kant thinks we are able to excogitate the necessary formulas to advance universal maxims that all can abide by. Yet Aquinas’ anthropological view already contains the law within man. It is something implanted in man and although there is a laborious process on the part of the individual, it isn’t something he constructs but rather discovers along the way. Natural Law can be acknowledged by man by realizing his own nature. Kierkegaard 5centuries later would call it a synthesis of finite and infinite. Aquinas thinks that by becoming aware of your nature you’ll realize the law within. You would acknowledge the psycho-physical nature that you possess, the inclinations found therein and that evidently you are not a mere chunk of matter but rather you exist confined to a body and bound by eternity.
What does the natural law do specifically? Aquinas thinks the law within surveys the psycho-physical necessities of man and via reason will act accordingly. Secondly, unlike Kant, reason doesn’t merely exercise its powers over our natural inclinations, but also it is participatory in the will of divine providence, it is determined from above. In this sense, man participates alongside divine providence and if that is the case, then our natural inclinations have to be ordered to act according to that plan and not loosely, or as we simply wish.
As opposed to Kant, reason isn’t the ultimate legislative originator, nor is the individual completely autonomous. Rather he is acted upon and acts according to a law already prescribed. The law is implanted in man and man comes to discover it. This is in line with Apostle Paul’s thinking in the book of Romans where the fundamental tenet of religious thought is that God put the law inside the heart of man. Lastly, what follows from this is that if reason is acting according to how it’s ordered from above then what comes through is a reflection of God’s reason or eternal law. It isn’t just a natural law, but rather we have access to God’s eternal law.
The two laws become one and the same when man aligns his thinking to correspond with the law from above. In discovering the nature of yourself and these guiding principles, you’ll come to realize that life belongs to the creator bestowed upon you to care for it. Our reason cannot simply gather maxims contrary to natural law. Natural law would dictate to preserve your life, and by killing yourself you would choose to defy the maxim, reject the natural law and reject thereby the eternal law. While Kant’s formulas and maxims leave room for dispute, Aquinas’ view reminds man that he isn’t sovereign, that although man is prey to circumstances that will make him question the worth of life, it isn’t up to him to terminate it.
Bibliography
Immanuel Kant, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. New York:
Cambridge, 2012.Print
Gilberta Pires. Aristotel, Kant, and the Samurai:Examining the Morality of Suicide. University of
Louisiana at Lafayette.
James McEvoy and Philipp W. Rosemann. St Thomas Aquinas on ethics, the body and suicide.
Universite Catholique de Louvain, Centre de Wulf-Mansion.
Mc Dermott. St Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae.
Photo by Ricards Zalmezs | Unsplash