David Hume’s late 18th-century essays, particularly "Of Suicide" and "Of the Immortality of the Soul," present a significant challenge to prevailing ethical and religious doctrines concerning self-slaughter. Rather than a straightforward endorsement, Hume offers a complex, reasoned exploration that centres on individual autonomy and the limits of divine or natural law. He argues that under certain circumstances, suicide can be a rational and morally permissible act, a conclusion that diverged sharply from the Calvinist and Deist thought of his time. Hume’s analysis rests on two core pillars: the idea that human beings possess a degree of sovereignty over their own lives, and a rejection of the notion that divine Providence strictly prohibits such an act. By carefully dissecting the arguments against suicide, Hume reveals their reliance on unexamined assumptions and appeals to supernatural authority, advocating instead for a secular, reason-based ethical framework.
A central tenet of Hume's argument is the concept of self-ownership. He posits that individuals, as rational agents, have a natural right to manage their own existence, including the decision to end it. This perspective stems from his empiricist philosophy, which distrusts abstract metaphysical claims and prioritizes observable experience and reason. For Hume, life is a gift, but one that comes with the inherent capacity for reasoned judgment. When that life becomes a source of unbearable suffering, and when all avenues for improvement are exhausted, the rational individual might choose to withdraw. He famously states, "It is no crime to put an end to that which is a source of perpetual misery and affliction." This is not a call for impulsive self-destruction but a considered response to a life that has lost its value or potential for well-being. Hume contrasts this with the idea that life is solely a divine possession, arguing that such a view underestimates human agency and the capacity for moral reasoning that humans demonstrably possess.
Furthermore, Hume systematically dismantled the theological arguments against suicide, particularly those rooted in the concept of natural law and divine will. The prevailing view held that life is a gift from God, and to take it is to usurp God's authority and defy the natural order. Hume countered this by questioning the very foundations of such claims. He argued that if suicide is inherently a violation of natural law, then so too are many actions considered permissible, such as resisting tyranny or defending oneself. He also challenged the interpretation of divine will. If God has endowed humans with reason and the capacity to act, then surely this capacity extends to making decisions about one's own life. He proposed that if Providence has placed humans in a situation of extreme and irremediable suffering, the act of ending that suffering might, in fact, be in accordance with a broader, albeit less obvious, divine plan, or at least not a direct contravention of it. He suggests that the universe operates by natural laws, and human actions, including self-preservation and, by extension, self-termination in extreme cases, can be seen as part of this natural order, rather than a rebellion against it.
Hume's exploration also touches upon the social implications of suicide, though his primary focus remains individual autonomy. He acknowledges that the decision to end one's life can have repercussions for family and society. However, he frames this not as a prohibition but as a factor to be considered within the individual's rational calculus. The suffering of others might weigh against the decision, but it does not, in itself, render the act inherently immoral. His argument is ultimately about the freedom of the individual to act according to their reasoned judgment, even in the face of societal norms or religious dogma. By separating the question of suicide from divine retribution or inherent sinfulness, Hume opens up a space for ethical deliberation that relies on human reason and compassion, rather than blind obedience to authority. His essays, though controversial, laid groundwork for later discussions on autonomy, end-of-life decisions, and the secularization of ethics.