Our orders are delivered strictly on time without delay 
Is suicide ever morally permissible? Discuss J. David Velleman’s response to this question, making use of Velleman’s “A Right of Self-Termination?” and relevant material from Kant.
Sample Answer
Title: The Morality of Suicide: J. David Velleman’s Perspective
Introduction:
The question of whether suicide can ever be morally permissible is a complex and deeply philosophical issue. J. David Velleman provides an intriguing perspective on this topic in his essay “A Right of Self-Termination?” By analyzing Velleman’s argument and incorporating relevant material from Kantian ethics, we can explore the moral implications of suicide and Velleman’s response to this controversial question.
Thesis Statement:
J. David Velleman argues for the moral permissibility of suicide by emphasizing an individual’s right to self-determination, while Kant’s ethical framework presents objections based on the intrinsic value of human life and the duty to preserve oneself.
Body:
J. David Velleman’s Perspective:
Velleman argues that individuals possess a right to self-determination, which includes the right to end their own lives. According to Velleman, personal autonomy and the ability to make choices are fundamental aspects of human dignity. He asserts that individuals should have control over their own lives, including the decision to terminate their existence. Velleman argues that suicide can be a rational choice made by individuals who face unbearable suffering or irreversible conditions.
Kantian Objections:
a. Intrinsic Value of Human Life: Immanuel Kant’s ethical framework emphasizes the inherent worth and dignity of human life. According to Kant, human beings possess intrinsic value and should be treated as ends in themselves, not as means to an end. From this perspective, suicide would be seen as a violation of the inherent value of human life, as it treats oneself merely as a means to escape suffering or difficulties.
b. Duty to Preserve Oneself: Kant also argues that individuals have a duty to preserve their own lives, rooted in the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative states that individuals should act according to maxims that can be willed as universal laws. Applying this principle to suicide, Kant would argue that if everyone were to will their own death as a universal law, it would lead to the destruction of society and the devaluation of life itself.
Velleman’s Response:
Velleman responds to Kantian objections by highlighting the importance of personal autonomy and the right to self-determination. He argues that the duty to preserve oneself does not override an individual’s right to make choices about their own life. Velleman contends that circumstances such as extreme suffering or terminal illness can impair an individual’s ability to lead a meaningful life, thus justifying their decision to end their own life.
Velleman further suggests that by recognizing an individual’s right to self-termination, society can provide support and resources for alternative options such as palliative care or counseling, which may help mitigate the desire for suicide.
Conclusion:
J. David Velleman’s perspective on the morality of suicide challenges traditional notions by asserting an individual’s right to self-determination. While Kantian ethics presents objections based on the intrinsic value of human life and the duty to preserve oneself, Velleman argues that personal autonomy and the right to make choices about one’s life should take precedence.
The debate surrounding the morality of suicide is highly nuanced and emotionally charged. By considering Velleman’s arguments in conjunction with Kantian objections, we can engage in a thoughtful examination of this complex issue and continue the ongoing discourse on personal autonomy, dignity, and the ethics surrounding suicide.
