This paper takes into account the loops within the anti-suicide arguments - we can clearly understand
that their theories were emerging either from their personal beliefs or irrelevant inferences. As
discussed later, they overlooked the fact that human beings have ultimate freedom over their
death and that is one thing that serves their ego. We see a mere categorical problem on behalf of
Camus and his Sisyphus; that how he failed to realise the difference of circumstance and choices.
How Kant’s …
Read moreThis paper takes into account the loops within the anti-suicide arguments - we can clearly understand
that their theories were emerging either from their personal beliefs or irrelevant inferences. As
discussed later, they overlooked the fact that human beings have ultimate freedom over their
death and that is one thing that serves their ego. We see a mere categorical problem on behalf of
Camus and his Sisyphus; that how he failed to realise the difference of circumstance and choices.
How Kant’s Categorical Imperative is like Plato’s Ideal World that can never exist and how
Rousseau failed to recognise individuals as humans. The paper also examine the pro-suicide arguments of Arthur Schopenhauer, Phillip Mainlander, Max Stirner and David Hume.
The paper concludes that although suicide is logical, however, there is a need to further categorise the types of suicides in order to create a better compass on this topic of self annihilation.
