Euthanza
Self Righteous Suicide
- Jun 9, 2022
- 1,431
Epicurus II, Letter to Menoeceus on the serenity regarding the human condition.
Epicurus II to Menoeceus, Greetings.
One should not believe that at a young age, it is too early to learn to die, nor should one renounce to learn to die at an older age. Because it is never too early or too late to walk towards true serenity. Now, he who would claim that the hour of learning to die has not arrived yet or has passed for him, may be compared to a Man who would say that the hour of no longer being afraid to die has not arrived yet or is no longer there for him. The young man and the old man, both must therefore learn to die; the latter to rejuvenate through the contact with the serenity that comes from the certainty of dying gently, remembering the pleasant days of the past; the former to fully enjoy his youthfulness, without missing the party of a lifetime because of the fear of death. And so, it is necessary to meditate upon the means which can allow us to die gently, for when these means are ours, there is nothing frightening about dying, whereas when they are lacking, we risk dying in long lasting pain.
Therefore, adhere to the humanistic teachings that I haven't ceased to give you and that I am going to reiterate to you; put them into practice and meditate upon them, convinced that they are the necessary principles to live well while respecting one's fellow men. Start by convincing yourself that a human being is a dignified being, regardless of his or her biological, psychological or social characteristics. In fact, you will only truly enter into philosophy when you rigorously distinguish the verb to be from the verb to have. Genes, skin color, manual and intellectual skills, psychological strengths and weaknesses, occupation and social class... are all about having and not being: human beings are not defined by these things. Human beings are consciousness, and nothing else. Never assign degrees to dignity; instead, always look upon it as universal, intrinsic to humanity. For all human beings are equally dignified, which is why the condemnation of acts that violate human dignity is patently legitimate. But alas, Menoeceus, during the year in which I am writing to you, 2020, this universal dignity, although formally recognized by the Human Rights, is not being respected: racism, sexism, classism and other forms of discrimination are enough evidence. By the same token, human beings are being forced to live, since the State and the society do not provide them with painless suicide methods, that would allow them to die peacefully at their own discretion. This injustice, less noticed by many, is nevertheless just as outrageous from an ethical point of view. If disposing of one's body and one's life is a human right, then no one can legitimately prevent a human being from gently leaving life when he wishes to do so. We are biologically programmed to live, but this does not mean we have a moral obligation to live: to pretend that biology should take the place of morality would be like reasoning just like the Marquis de Sade. Human rights, on the contrary, must be used to fight against natural injustices. The state and society could allow human beings to have actual control over their bodies and their lives, which would be ethically legitimate and necessary, but they do not, which constitutes a violation of their dignity. Doing something out of fear of the consequences which will result from not doing it, is acting under duress. To live with the fear of dying in pain or failing in your suicide attempt is therefore to live by coercion, not by personal choice. However, between "living by personal choice" and "living under duress", there is the same difference as that which exists between a love affair and a rape: the former by choice, the latter by force. To be forced to live, in other words, not to have one's life at one's disposal, is to be subjected to an existential violation, which prevents us from attaining lucid serenity and enjoying a consistent existence with our dignity. But the crowd, unable to get rid of what is part of itself and in its eyes, the very essence of justice, accepts being forced to live and considers the establishment of a right to painless suicide as an absurdity.
On the subject of death, my ancestor Epicurus stated the essential, so I will repeat for you his wise reflections. "Develop the habit of thinking that death means nothing to us. For all good and all harm resides in sensation: and death is the deprivation of all sensibility.''
Therefore, the understanding of this truth, by which death means nothing to us, enables us to enjoy this mortal life, for it does not add the prospect of an infinite duration, but instead relieves us from the desire for immortality." "It is thus idle to contend that death should be feared, not because it is painful upon realization, but because the painful thing is to wait for it. To anticipate something that does not cause the slightest problem once it is present would certainly be a futile and pointless fear. Thus, the one of all evils that terrifies us the most, death, is nothing to us, since, as long as we exist ourselves, death does not, and when death exists, we are no longer. So, death exists neither for the living nor for the dead, since it has nothing to do with the former, and the latter are no more." "The wise person does not deprecate life, nor is he afraid of ceasing to live: for life is not a burden on him, nor does he consider any evil in ceasing to live." I would add, in support of his arguments, that even if the knowledge that there will be nothing, when I am no more is a source of existential anguish, this anguish concerns only the living, and that if the death of others affects us, it is not so much about death, but the absence of those who are no longer - and to experience a feeling of absence, one must be alive; the dead no longer suffer and are no longer affected by anything, so our own death means nothing. On the other hand, even if "outside life, there is nothing fearsome", there is still one thing to fear in life: the demise, hence the importance of anticipating it in order to make it peaceful. Death is nothing, but dying is not nothing, because when one dies, one remains alive... The fear of death is unfounded, but the fear of dying in pain is justified, hence the importance of having serene methods of passing away to overcome this fear. Similarly, "to call death the end of the evils of life" is not a folly of the crowd but a legitimate choice when we judge our life as being too painful, for death is the absence of suffering and to dispose of one's life is a human right. However, the fear of dying is not futile and pointless because it is produced by the expectation of one thing, agony, which causes many troubles by its presence. Try, therefore, Menoeceus, to spare yourself the anguish of this waiting by providing yourself with the means for a peaceful death.
"In the same way that it is not always the most abundant food that we prefer, but sometimes the most pleasant, so it is not always the longest time we want to enjoy, but the most pleasant." This fair reflection implies the ethical and existential legitimacy of the right to commit suicide with no pain. If quality of life is preferable to quantity, if we want a life that is enjoyable until our last day and not the longest possible life at whatever cost, then when our life becomes a torment, in other words when quantity impinges on quality, we must be able to have a painless death. Moreover, if we know that we can die in peace whenever we decide to do so, that will give us a feeling of serenity that will make our life considerably more pleasant. On the other hand, my ancestor, although so wise and humanistic most of the time, showed a dreadful bad faith when he addressed the issue of suicide. Remember what he said: "Much worse is he who says that it were good not to be born", or "once born, to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible". For if the man who speaks such words is convinced, how can he not withdraw from life? This is indeed something that is always within his reach, if he wants his death with a firm will." Such a speech makes suffering and dying human beings feel guilty for wanting to be alive and incites them to commit suicide, which is ethically abhorrent. But above all, this reasoning assumes that people who decide to take their own lives must accept to die in pain and do not need peaceful methods of death if "they want their death with a firm will", in other words, if they are not cowardly and weak-willed. Epicurus, the atheist, flirts here with religious fundamentalism: the human being who wishes to withdraw from life would be a fool who would have to pay the price of his desertion, that price being agony. Moreover, according to my ancestors, one should not joke about suicide and "display lightness on a matter that has none", which would imply that life is sacred. The genuine atheist allows himself to laugh at life, to "blaspheme" it when it is unfair and places human freedom above it. He also acknowledges that committing suicide in pain is not congruent with the dignity of those withdrawing from life, hence the ethical need to provide human beings with methods of painless death. Given the difficulty of committing suicide, one can both suffer excruciatingly and remain alive by duress. Only when suicide is made easy and serene by society and the State, in other words, when life is no longer a constraint but merely an option, it will be contradictory to say that it is better "to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible" while remaining alive. We did not choose to be born, therefore we should have the choice to die gently.
To live peacefully and happily, avoiding disappointment and dissatisfaction as much as possible, refer to the excellent classification of the desires made by my ancestor. Remember: there are natural and necessary desires, such as hydration, food, protection from the cold and friendship with other human beings; natural and unnecessary desires, such as sexuality, sports, good food, and other body care needs; and lastly, unnatural and unnecessary desires, such as the thirst for wealth, luxury, power, and glory. To avoid creating your own misfortune, aim only at satisfying your natural desires, both necessary and unnecessary: find a decent home in which you would like to live, drink, eat, philosophize with your friends, walk, contemplate the nature and the works of Men, do sports, take care of yourself when necessary, make love and masturbate. According to Epicurus, "all that is natural is easy to obtain": this statement is true only under certain conditions. In fact, if you are not fit to work, or if the state and society do not allow you to practice a decent job, consistent with your interests and your dignity, it will be difficult or even impossible for you to satisfy your natural desires. Without an acceptable social situation, lasting serenity will not be within your reach. But we must go even further, my dear Menoeceus. If human beings are only allowed to satisfy their natural desires, if they serve the society or State, this implies they are not granted their own dignity, but only a dignity related to their social utility: they are instrumentalized, made into a utilitarian object. Therefore, from a political perspective, respect for universal human dignity can only take place through the establishment of a universal income that allows for the satisfaction of our natural desires, or through the free access to the objects of our natural desires, keeping in mind that shared sexuality and friendship will always imply the consent of others. To recognize the human being as a dignified being is to allow him, without conditions, to live with dignity. If providing them with material living conditions that are consistent with their dignity is in fact impossible, then they must at least be allowed to withdraw with dignity from a life that they have not asked for.
Alas, contrary to what my ancestor said, it is possible to live pleasantly when one does not live with prudence, honesty and justice, and it is possible to live with prudence, honesty and justice without living pleasantly: one can be irresponsible, malicious and happy, or on the contrary ethically demanding, good and unhappy. It is therefore imperative that we continue our struggle towards universal respect for human dignity. On the other hand, it is true that our future is neither ours nor yet completely out of our grasp: part of it depends on us, part of it depends on chance. We must therefore, as our Stoic opponents have shown, concentrate on what depends on us and try to accept what does not, while trying, as Montaigne encouraged us to do, to live as much as possible in the present, which is the only time that belongs to us.
But the time has come for me, dear Menoeceus, to finish my letter. Consider these virulent criticisms of my ancestor as tokens of love for him. In the third century B.C., when slavery and belief in the divine cosmos were taken for granted, only a genius could have thought such things. Let us thank him with a grateful heart for enlightening us spiritually and setting us on the path of truth. The humanism we profess, which holds that the human being must always be able to satisfy his natural desires and gently withdraw from life whenever he chooses to, was already beginning to take shape in the letter that Epicurus affectionately addressed to you. So, meditate upon all these teachings and all those who relate to them, meditate upon them day and night, both by yourself and in communion with your fellow man. If you do so, you may still feel troubled while dreaming or awake, yet you may become both lucid and serene with respect to the human condition.
Epicurus II, Letter to Menoeceus
Epicurus II to Menoeceus, Greetings.
One should not believe that at a young age, it is too early to learn to die, nor should one renounce to learn to die at an older age. Because it is never too early or too late to walk towards true serenity. Now, he who would claim that the hour of learning to die has not arrived yet or has passed for him, may be compared to a Man who would say that the hour of no longer being afraid to die has not arrived yet or is no longer there for him. The young man and the old man, both must therefore learn to die; the latter to rejuvenate through the contact with the serenity that comes from the certainty of dying gently, remembering the pleasant days of the past; the former to fully enjoy his youthfulness, without missing the party of a lifetime because of the fear of death. And so, it is necessary to meditate upon the means which can allow us to die gently, for when these means are ours, there is nothing frightening about dying, whereas when they are lacking, we risk dying in long lasting pain.
Therefore, adhere to the humanistic teachings that I haven't ceased to give you and that I am going to reiterate to you; put them into practice and meditate upon them, convinced that they are the necessary principles to live well while respecting one's fellow men. Start by convincing yourself that a human being is a dignified being, regardless of his or her biological, psychological or social characteristics. In fact, you will only truly enter into philosophy when you rigorously distinguish the verb to be from the verb to have. Genes, skin color, manual and intellectual skills, psychological strengths and weaknesses, occupation and social class... are all about having and not being: human beings are not defined by these things. Human beings are consciousness, and nothing else. Never assign degrees to dignity; instead, always look upon it as universal, intrinsic to humanity. For all human beings are equally dignified, which is why the condemnation of acts that violate human dignity is patently legitimate. But alas, Menoeceus, during the year in which I am writing to you, 2020, this universal dignity, although formally recognized by the Human Rights, is not being respected: racism, sexism, classism and other forms of discrimination are enough evidence. By the same token, human beings are being forced to live, since the State and the society do not provide them with painless suicide methods, that would allow them to die peacefully at their own discretion. This injustice, less noticed by many, is nevertheless just as outrageous from an ethical point of view. If disposing of one's body and one's life is a human right, then no one can legitimately prevent a human being from gently leaving life when he wishes to do so. We are biologically programmed to live, but this does not mean we have a moral obligation to live: to pretend that biology should take the place of morality would be like reasoning just like the Marquis de Sade. Human rights, on the contrary, must be used to fight against natural injustices. The state and society could allow human beings to have actual control over their bodies and their lives, which would be ethically legitimate and necessary, but they do not, which constitutes a violation of their dignity. Doing something out of fear of the consequences which will result from not doing it, is acting under duress. To live with the fear of dying in pain or failing in your suicide attempt is therefore to live by coercion, not by personal choice. However, between "living by personal choice" and "living under duress", there is the same difference as that which exists between a love affair and a rape: the former by choice, the latter by force. To be forced to live, in other words, not to have one's life at one's disposal, is to be subjected to an existential violation, which prevents us from attaining lucid serenity and enjoying a consistent existence with our dignity. But the crowd, unable to get rid of what is part of itself and in its eyes, the very essence of justice, accepts being forced to live and considers the establishment of a right to painless suicide as an absurdity.
On the subject of death, my ancestor Epicurus stated the essential, so I will repeat for you his wise reflections. "Develop the habit of thinking that death means nothing to us. For all good and all harm resides in sensation: and death is the deprivation of all sensibility.''
Therefore, the understanding of this truth, by which death means nothing to us, enables us to enjoy this mortal life, for it does not add the prospect of an infinite duration, but instead relieves us from the desire for immortality." "It is thus idle to contend that death should be feared, not because it is painful upon realization, but because the painful thing is to wait for it. To anticipate something that does not cause the slightest problem once it is present would certainly be a futile and pointless fear. Thus, the one of all evils that terrifies us the most, death, is nothing to us, since, as long as we exist ourselves, death does not, and when death exists, we are no longer. So, death exists neither for the living nor for the dead, since it has nothing to do with the former, and the latter are no more." "The wise person does not deprecate life, nor is he afraid of ceasing to live: for life is not a burden on him, nor does he consider any evil in ceasing to live." I would add, in support of his arguments, that even if the knowledge that there will be nothing, when I am no more is a source of existential anguish, this anguish concerns only the living, and that if the death of others affects us, it is not so much about death, but the absence of those who are no longer - and to experience a feeling of absence, one must be alive; the dead no longer suffer and are no longer affected by anything, so our own death means nothing. On the other hand, even if "outside life, there is nothing fearsome", there is still one thing to fear in life: the demise, hence the importance of anticipating it in order to make it peaceful. Death is nothing, but dying is not nothing, because when one dies, one remains alive... The fear of death is unfounded, but the fear of dying in pain is justified, hence the importance of having serene methods of passing away to overcome this fear. Similarly, "to call death the end of the evils of life" is not a folly of the crowd but a legitimate choice when we judge our life as being too painful, for death is the absence of suffering and to dispose of one's life is a human right. However, the fear of dying is not futile and pointless because it is produced by the expectation of one thing, agony, which causes many troubles by its presence. Try, therefore, Menoeceus, to spare yourself the anguish of this waiting by providing yourself with the means for a peaceful death.
"In the same way that it is not always the most abundant food that we prefer, but sometimes the most pleasant, so it is not always the longest time we want to enjoy, but the most pleasant." This fair reflection implies the ethical and existential legitimacy of the right to commit suicide with no pain. If quality of life is preferable to quantity, if we want a life that is enjoyable until our last day and not the longest possible life at whatever cost, then when our life becomes a torment, in other words when quantity impinges on quality, we must be able to have a painless death. Moreover, if we know that we can die in peace whenever we decide to do so, that will give us a feeling of serenity that will make our life considerably more pleasant. On the other hand, my ancestor, although so wise and humanistic most of the time, showed a dreadful bad faith when he addressed the issue of suicide. Remember what he said: "Much worse is he who says that it were good not to be born", or "once born, to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible". For if the man who speaks such words is convinced, how can he not withdraw from life? This is indeed something that is always within his reach, if he wants his death with a firm will." Such a speech makes suffering and dying human beings feel guilty for wanting to be alive and incites them to commit suicide, which is ethically abhorrent. But above all, this reasoning assumes that people who decide to take their own lives must accept to die in pain and do not need peaceful methods of death if "they want their death with a firm will", in other words, if they are not cowardly and weak-willed. Epicurus, the atheist, flirts here with religious fundamentalism: the human being who wishes to withdraw from life would be a fool who would have to pay the price of his desertion, that price being agony. Moreover, according to my ancestors, one should not joke about suicide and "display lightness on a matter that has none", which would imply that life is sacred. The genuine atheist allows himself to laugh at life, to "blaspheme" it when it is unfair and places human freedom above it. He also acknowledges that committing suicide in pain is not congruent with the dignity of those withdrawing from life, hence the ethical need to provide human beings with methods of painless death. Given the difficulty of committing suicide, one can both suffer excruciatingly and remain alive by duress. Only when suicide is made easy and serene by society and the State, in other words, when life is no longer a constraint but merely an option, it will be contradictory to say that it is better "to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible" while remaining alive. We did not choose to be born, therefore we should have the choice to die gently.
To live peacefully and happily, avoiding disappointment and dissatisfaction as much as possible, refer to the excellent classification of the desires made by my ancestor. Remember: there are natural and necessary desires, such as hydration, food, protection from the cold and friendship with other human beings; natural and unnecessary desires, such as sexuality, sports, good food, and other body care needs; and lastly, unnatural and unnecessary desires, such as the thirst for wealth, luxury, power, and glory. To avoid creating your own misfortune, aim only at satisfying your natural desires, both necessary and unnecessary: find a decent home in which you would like to live, drink, eat, philosophize with your friends, walk, contemplate the nature and the works of Men, do sports, take care of yourself when necessary, make love and masturbate. According to Epicurus, "all that is natural is easy to obtain": this statement is true only under certain conditions. In fact, if you are not fit to work, or if the state and society do not allow you to practice a decent job, consistent with your interests and your dignity, it will be difficult or even impossible for you to satisfy your natural desires. Without an acceptable social situation, lasting serenity will not be within your reach. But we must go even further, my dear Menoeceus. If human beings are only allowed to satisfy their natural desires, if they serve the society or State, this implies they are not granted their own dignity, but only a dignity related to their social utility: they are instrumentalized, made into a utilitarian object. Therefore, from a political perspective, respect for universal human dignity can only take place through the establishment of a universal income that allows for the satisfaction of our natural desires, or through the free access to the objects of our natural desires, keeping in mind that shared sexuality and friendship will always imply the consent of others. To recognize the human being as a dignified being is to allow him, without conditions, to live with dignity. If providing them with material living conditions that are consistent with their dignity is in fact impossible, then they must at least be allowed to withdraw with dignity from a life that they have not asked for.
Alas, contrary to what my ancestor said, it is possible to live pleasantly when one does not live with prudence, honesty and justice, and it is possible to live with prudence, honesty and justice without living pleasantly: one can be irresponsible, malicious and happy, or on the contrary ethically demanding, good and unhappy. It is therefore imperative that we continue our struggle towards universal respect for human dignity. On the other hand, it is true that our future is neither ours nor yet completely out of our grasp: part of it depends on us, part of it depends on chance. We must therefore, as our Stoic opponents have shown, concentrate on what depends on us and try to accept what does not, while trying, as Montaigne encouraged us to do, to live as much as possible in the present, which is the only time that belongs to us.
But the time has come for me, dear Menoeceus, to finish my letter. Consider these virulent criticisms of my ancestor as tokens of love for him. In the third century B.C., when slavery and belief in the divine cosmos were taken for granted, only a genius could have thought such things. Let us thank him with a grateful heart for enlightening us spiritually and setting us on the path of truth. The humanism we profess, which holds that the human being must always be able to satisfy his natural desires and gently withdraw from life whenever he chooses to, was already beginning to take shape in the letter that Epicurus affectionately addressed to you. So, meditate upon all these teachings and all those who relate to them, meditate upon them day and night, both by yourself and in communion with your fellow man. If you do so, you may still feel troubled while dreaming or awake, yet you may become both lucid and serene with respect to the human condition.
Epicurus II, Letter to Menoeceus
