Three Religious Arguments Opposing Suicide and Active Euthanasia

7/30/2019 Three Religious Arguments Opposing Suicide and Active Euthanasia

1/12

Three Religious Arguments

Opposing Suicide and Active

Euthanasia2006 Makoto Suzuki


2/12

Aims

Introducing three religious arguments

Gods Prohibition argument

Gods Dominion/Gift argument

Suffering as Gods Plan argument

Reconfirming challenges to all three arguments

Pointing out problems specific to each argument


3/12

Three Religious Arguments (Rachels, 51-4)1. Gods Prohibition ArgumentGod prohibits killing a person. It is

wrong to violate Gods prohibition.

Thus, suicide and active euthanasiaare wrong.


4/12

2. Gods Dominion/Gift Argument

A persons life is under Gods dominion: it

is for God alone to decide when a person

shall live and when shall die. Thus, it is

wrong for him or her to play God and

decide it for him- or her- self. Hence, suicide

and voluntary euthanasia are wrong.

The idea of Gods dominion is usually

defended by claiming that God creates

persons and give them life as a gift.

(Beauchamp, 87-9)


5/12

3. Suffering as Gods Plan Argument

Suffering is part of life. God has planed

that a person suffer. Thus, if a person kills

him- or her self or have him killed to avoidsuffering, it will disturb Gods plan. It is

wrong to disturb Gods plan. Therefore,

suicide and active euthanasia are wrong.


6/12

Challenges to All Three Arguments

All three arguments refer to a particular image of God,who forbids certain actions, decides when a person shall

live and when shall die, or has some grand plan.However, believers in certain non-theistic religions (suchas Eastern religions, e.g., Buddhism, Confucianism andShintoism) as well as atheists do not believe in the

existence of such a God. In fact, as Rachels observes on p.366, these non-

Western religions tend to allow voluntary death, esp.in the case of hopeless disease.

Even if some theistic religion is shown to be true, thereare interpretative disputes about what God forbids, whatGod decides, and what God plans.

Below we will see the problem of interpretation for

each argument.


7/12

Gods Prohibition Argument (Rachels, 51-2) The Sixth Commandment (Thou shalt not kill or Thou

shalt not murder) is often used to establish that God forbids

killing a person, and hence suicide and active euthanasia. This appeal to the Sixth Commandment requires prior

justification of the Bible as authority.

Even if this point is granted for the sake of argument, there is

an interpretative dispute about the Sixth Commandment:Thou shalt not kill whom? And on what conditions?Suicide and active euthanasia might be exceptions as valid asperhaps self- or other- defense and capital punishment are.

I do not know the correct interpretation. (Surprise?) However, it must be consistent with the theistic assumption

that God is omni-benevolent. On the one hand, if suicide oreuthanasia is bad on balance, God might well prohibit it; onthe other hand, if suicide or euthanasia is good on balance, it

is implausible to claim that God prohibits it.


8/12

Gods Dominion Argument: Playing God

As it is, this argument faces Humes apparently

devastating objection. (Rachels, 53) Suppose that it is for God alone to decide when a

person shall live and when shall die; deciding it for

him- or her- self is playing God and thus morallywrong.

Then, we play God and do wrongs as much whenwe cure people as when we kill them, not to mentionlengthening their life span by diet, work etc.

Thus, the arguer needs to modify his or herargument so that only the decision of shortening life

is up to God and is wrong for us to make.


9/12

Gods Dominion/Gift argument: Gratitude? The idea of Gods dominion over a persons life is

usually defended by claiming that He creates theperson and gives it to the person as a gift. But somereligions do not hold the view that God is a creator.

However, for the sake of argument, suppose that

God (exists and) is a creator and gives us life as agift. How does this support the view that it is forGod alone to decide when a person shall live and

when shall die? Presumably, it is the appeal to the obligation of

gratitude. Because we owe God a life, we have theobligation to feel and express gratitude to Him. It is

the act of ingratitude to end our life voluntarily.


10/12

Gratitude? There are two difficulties in this reasoning.

First, it is controversial whether one is obliged to feel andexpress gratitude for a thing that he or she does notvoluntarily accept when he or she receives.

Consider: if your mother-in-law is a busybody and

sends you things which she thinks are good for you butwhich you do not care for, are you obligated to feel andexpress gratitude for that to her?

Because we do not voluntarily accept life, it iscontroversial whether we owe God gratitude for that.(Dont confuse this with the question of whether Hedeserves our worship; if He exists and is omni-benevolent

etc., He will deserve our worship or greatest respect.)


11/12

Gratitude? Second, even if one owes gratitude for a thing to a person, it is not

necessarily wrong to dispose of it however he or she pleases.

It seems that it is wrong only when you can know that thebenefactor intends you not to use the gift in a certain way, but stilluse in that way.

The arguer thus needs to show that God has willed that you nottake your life in virtue of your misery. (Beauchamp, 91)

Further, even in such a case, a significant reason can justify theaction, given that thanks (and perhaps apology) are sincerelyexpressed.

Consider the case you sell a ring your mother gave you in order

to start a business Suppose you accept this point. Then, as Hume suggests, even

if God has willed that you not take your life in virtue of yourmisery, taking your own life to remove the misery might be

justifiable given that thanks (and and perhaps apology) to Godare sincerely expressed. (Beauchamp, 91)


12/12

Suffering as Gods Plan Argument It is said: God has planed that a person suffer.

Even if we suppose Gods existence, this interpretation ofGods plan is extremely controversial.

This claim is hard to reconcile with the theistic assumptionthat God is omni-benevolent.

Further, if this claim is true and it is wrong to disturb Godsplan, it will be wrong to relieve a persons suffering by anymeasure: e.g., listening to his or her story, showingcompassion, counseling, medicine, giving pain-killers, giving

compensation etc. (Rachels, 54) Thus, the arguer might rather claim that God has a limited

plan: that a person sufferif taking his or her life is the onlyway-out. Whether this claim is supportable is another

question.

Documents

Three Religious Arguments Opposing Suicide and Active Euthanasia