args

Suicide should be a crime

Legally, suicide was considered synonymous with felo de se, that is, where one who is of the age of discretion and is mentally competent, voluntarily kills himself in any way. I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that suicide is an extremely sad situation, however disagreement arises when we try to come to an agreement over whether or not it should be 'illegal'. The question over whether or not the act should be ‘illegal’ depends on basically two factors- 1. Why does law exist? What is the basis of classifying a certain act as illegal? 2. Whether or not suicide falls into that category. I’ll begin by outlining the basic objective of a law, and then go into whether or not suicide violates the objective. A. Let’s look at some of the constitution preambles over the world. USA India Argentina The basic commonality between these constitutions is that they aim to general welfare of the people. This general welfare clause, a part of many constitutions, statutes and charters- aims to maximise the preserve the social structure of the state as a whole, be it through political/ economic/ cultural tools. To protect the society as a whole and to preserve the social fabric that ensures the strength of that structure. It might seem very anti- libertarian in the beginning, but we need to realize that a without a strong social structure, it is *impossible* to maintain individual liberty and freedom. Individual freedom banks upon the social contract that is in place. In order for us to maximize our utility/ happiness, we need non discriminatory laws, equality clause, freedom laws. There just cannot be a harmonious society without these basic ingredients. Thus the objective of a law is to preserve the social structure, and consequently provide the basic tools for maximizing individual utility- while at the same time preserving individual liberty and free will. With this in mind, let us move on to point B. B. Legalizing suicide implies violation of the aforementioned social structure. This brings us to the next point- what does illegalizing something mean? Does it mean that a person would go to jail over it? Not necessarily. What it means is that the state is compelled to interfere in case the aforementioned act is carried out. The action taken by the state in response to someone committing suicide is open to questioning, is open to discussion. In this debate, we are concerned with whether or not the state *should* interfere in case someone exhibits suicidal tendencies. Why the state should interfere is because (as would be explained forth) it attacks the very moral fabric of the society, causes suffering to people beyond the person committing suicide, and undermines the sanctity of life. State has a moral duty of interfering in case one of a subjects displays such a destructive tendency. To support, to rehabilitate, *even if the person does not desire it*. (a) Choice to live and morality: "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these." – Ayn Rand Man is, first and foremost, a living being. Maintenance of life is his ultimate goal. This is universal, all organisms initiate any action as a subversion to that goal. They kill, eat, breathe, in order to live. Humans are a little more complex because they have free will. BECAUSE we have free will, we need moral standards to guide our lives. These standards need not be the same- and they need not be objective- but the very reason for moral standards to exist is because we have free will. We act, not merely exist. Morality helps us identify the important needs of a human- love, friendship, money, happiness, whatever- and then guides us to the tools we need to achieve them, the moral virtues. BUT, and this an important but, if a person does not wish to live, this is all moot. As Rand put it, "Life or death is man's only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course. There’s no sense of morality then." The objective of the law is to protect the state and the people from each other, and to help guide people to make the choices that are right for the society. Suicide is not right for the society. The act is a final clip from the thread holding the society together, morality. It undermines the sanctity of life, and by extension- the basis of every right, law and obligation enforced by the constitution. (b) The question of rights: Suicide being ‘legalised’ is often viewed as a question of choice, rather than as an immorality- against oneself and others around you. Suicide is intentional killing of a person, and consequently causing suffering. The right to life, the principle that’s often raised to legitimize suicide, does not cover the right to death. Right to non discrimination does not preclude right to allow yourself to be actively discriminated against by the society- since the repercussions of the latter affect a lot more people than just that one person, and has a negative influence on the social fabric of the suicide. Similarly, the right to life does not preclude the right to death precisely because the repercussions of the right to death go against the very structure of the constitution. A person who shows willingness to die should be actively helped, regardless of whether or not he shows the willingness to go to a rehab/ rehabilitate himself. Given that the state has an obligation to ‘promote general welfare’ and ‘preserve social order’; a person who shows the inclination to give it all up and die needs to be helped. Thus, summarizing, suicide should be illegal because any inclination to suicide *needs* to be addressed, since that goes against the very fabric of the social structure. It causes suffering, is immoral, and thus reduces the general welfare of the public- which is what the constitution aims to maximize. It is thus state’s obligation to interfere and provide the requisite support structure. It shouldn’t be normal, and we as a society should actively seek help rather than justifying someone’s will to die.