Response: It seems that God would have done something wrong in creating this world were one or more of the following principles true:
1) It is wrong to bring into existence, knowingly, a being less happy than one He could have brought into existence.
2) On average, a person's life is so miserable that it is not worth having.
If God has not wronged anyone in the above two ways, then it is not the case that suicide annihilationism is a right held by anyone whereby a right to suicide annihilationism I mean:
Since nobody chooses to exist, suicide annihilationism (ceasing to exist forever) is a legitimate matter of personal choice and a human right for those who have rationally and conscientiously made a decision to end their own lives.
1) It is wrong to bring into existence, knowingly, a being less happy than one He could have brought into existence.
2) On average, a person's life is so miserable that it is not worth having.
If God has not wronged anyone in the above two ways, then it is not the case that suicide annihilationism is a right held by anyone whereby a right to suicide annihilationism I mean:
Since nobody chooses to exist, suicide annihilationism (ceasing to exist forever) is a legitimate matter of personal choice and a human right for those who have rationally and conscientiously made a decision to end their own lives.
In response to 1) and 2) I would say that the world God has created contains creatures, each of whom is equally happy or happier in this world compared to any other possible world in which it exists. Moreover, no creature in this world is so miserable that it would be better had it not existed; even those who are eternally separated from God.
Has God wronged anyone in creating this world? God cannot have wronged the creatures in the other possible world, for merely possible beings don't have rights. Nor can he have wronged the creatures in the world he has created, for their lives could not be made more happy. Moreover, I would say that we weren't made to just be teachers, janitors, soldiers, office techs, etc., we were made to know God, and this is, in view of its object, an incommensurable good, incomparable to anything else, to any finite goods. It really is an amazing privilege when you think about it. I think that people who want to hand back the ticket to life that God has given them, are people who have a deep sense of how ultimately unsatisfying the various finite goods there are are with respect to the existential angst of death, the need for cosmic security, meaning, forgiveness and the like. Not everyone may feel those needs, but I think the people who want to hand the ticket of life back to God are ironically, those people who feel these needs so deeply and know that only God can meet them, but who do not, or at least, have not yet experienced God meeting those needs. Now the tragedy is that the unbeliever freely rejects this incomparable good that God offers him. So in that sense he does not benefit from being created. Nonetheless, it remains true that the reason God created him was for his own benefit, that is, for his own good, and every created person has the incredible benefit of the opportunity of knowing God, a benefit not enjoyed by persons whom God did not create (obviously!).
Think of it this way: if someone offered you a great gift with no strings attached simply because that person loved you, and you freely rejected the gift, then you wouldn’t in the end have the benefit of the gift. But still the person offered it to you for your own benefit. And even having the opportunity to have such a great gift was itself a tremendous benefit that you were fortunate to have.
It can’t be overemphasized that according to the Bible God desires every human being to be saved and find eternal life (I Timothy 2.4), and He takes no pleasure whatsoever in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33.11). God created us for our benefit, not His, and every created person has the benefit of the opportunity to know God and His love forever, if only he will accept it. If he chooses to repulse God and His every effort to save him, the life of the unbeliever is ultimately tragic because he has freely rejected the benefit which God offers him.
In response to 3), Kant argues that choosing to commit suicide entails considering oneself as a means to an end, which he rejects: a person, he says, must not be used "...merely as means, but must in all actions always be considered as an end in himself." Therefore, it is unethical to commit suicide to satisfy oneself.
I would say that while it is true that nobody chooses to exist, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the right to take their own life permanently, all things being equal. For example, suppose a father of two children that were both the result of unplanned pregnancies decides that He doesn't want to live anymore because he didn't choose to have his children, and so, he wants to exercise his 'right' to take his life. Or again, suppose that a husband has a wife who gets cancer, but since he didn't choose to be a husband of a wife with cancer, he thinks that he has the right to divorce her. Or again, suppose a man is rushed into the emergency room who is only recently dead due to a car crash. The doctors are able to revive the man, and bring him back to life so that he is stable and able to make a full recovery. A few weeks later the man gets his medical bill in the mail, but he protests the bill since he didn't choose to undergo the surgery that brought him back to life. Of course, that wouldn't get him out having to pay his bill. To be fair however, this is not to say that suicide is always irrational or unethical such as in case of extreme pain, torture, and the like, but we are talking about a person here who wants to be blotted from existence forever, even in the afterlife. Moreover, there do seem to be instances where being in a state of affairs that one didn't choose enables one with the right to end that state of affairs (i.e. non-consensual sex), but I would venture to guess that all such instances involve a moral wronging of some sort which is not analogous to the situation under consideration here. Our existence is a gift, not a forced rape.
Third, if Christian theism is true, then it is practically irrational for a human being to choose non-existence over existence with God in heaven forever. Practical reason is the use of reason to decide how to act. According to Immanuel Kant, practical rationality is the strategy for living one’s best possible life, and moreover, man's highest possible good is to achieve the happiness that arises out of perfect virtue and the meeting of all our biological needs. However, on Christian theism, Kant's highest possible good is only achievable if we accept God's gift of eternal life through faith in the His Son's life, death, and resurrection. Moreover, on Christian theism, the highest possible good is to have an intimate and unalloyed personal relationship with God forever in heaven, and out of this relationship flows Kant's highest good. So then, if our practical reason is meant to be used to decide how to act, and if the most rational thing to do is adopt the strategy for living one's best possible life, and if on Christian theism this type of life is not only possible, but actual, then it would be practically irrational to wish for ones non-existence since it would frustrate the attainment of the best possible life. So, for a person who feels like their life isn't worth living, instead of despairing, such a person should undertake the project of coming to believe that there is a God.
But, let us suppose that there exists such a right, and that such a right takes precedence over all other moral principles we might invoke. Well, in such a case, the moral thing to do is let that person have the option of choosing life, and more specifically, life with God in heaven, and if after denying such an opportunity, such a person wants to exercise their 'right' to be annihilated from existence forever, then God would grant them their wish. In fact, there are some theologians and philosophers who argue that this is what God will do for those persons who would go to hell, and so, we could also say that God would do the same for persons who simply want to be annihilated from existence, period.
In the end then, God hasn't wronged anyone in creating them, and I really believe that those who experience God, will know that it is better to exist and know the joy of relating personally to God rather than to have never had that opportunity and never existed at all.
--(G. K. Chesterton calls suicide "the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence". He argues that a person who kills himself, as far as he is concerned, destroys the entire world)
Has God wronged anyone in creating this world? God cannot have wronged the creatures in the other possible world, for merely possible beings don't have rights. Nor can he have wronged the creatures in the world he has created, for their lives could not be made more happy. Moreover, I would say that we weren't made to just be teachers, janitors, soldiers, office techs, etc., we were made to know God, and this is, in view of its object, an incommensurable good, incomparable to anything else, to any finite goods. It really is an amazing privilege when you think about it. I think that people who want to hand back the ticket to life that God has given them, are people who have a deep sense of how ultimately unsatisfying the various finite goods there are are with respect to the existential angst of death, the need for cosmic security, meaning, forgiveness and the like. Not everyone may feel those needs, but I think the people who want to hand the ticket of life back to God are ironically, those people who feel these needs so deeply and know that only God can meet them, but who do not, or at least, have not yet experienced God meeting those needs. Now the tragedy is that the unbeliever freely rejects this incomparable good that God offers him. So in that sense he does not benefit from being created. Nonetheless, it remains true that the reason God created him was for his own benefit, that is, for his own good, and every created person has the incredible benefit of the opportunity of knowing God, a benefit not enjoyed by persons whom God did not create (obviously!).
Think of it this way: if someone offered you a great gift with no strings attached simply because that person loved you, and you freely rejected the gift, then you wouldn’t in the end have the benefit of the gift. But still the person offered it to you for your own benefit. And even having the opportunity to have such a great gift was itself a tremendous benefit that you were fortunate to have.
It can’t be overemphasized that according to the Bible God desires every human being to be saved and find eternal life (I Timothy 2.4), and He takes no pleasure whatsoever in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel 33.11). God created us for our benefit, not His, and every created person has the benefit of the opportunity to know God and His love forever, if only he will accept it. If he chooses to repulse God and His every effort to save him, the life of the unbeliever is ultimately tragic because he has freely rejected the benefit which God offers him.
In response to 3), Kant argues that choosing to commit suicide entails considering oneself as a means to an end, which he rejects: a person, he says, must not be used "...merely as means, but must in all actions always be considered as an end in himself." Therefore, it is unethical to commit suicide to satisfy oneself.
I would say that while it is true that nobody chooses to exist, that doesn't necessarily mean that they have the right to take their own life permanently, all things being equal. For example, suppose a father of two children that were both the result of unplanned pregnancies decides that He doesn't want to live anymore because he didn't choose to have his children, and so, he wants to exercise his 'right' to take his life. Or again, suppose that a husband has a wife who gets cancer, but since he didn't choose to be a husband of a wife with cancer, he thinks that he has the right to divorce her. Or again, suppose a man is rushed into the emergency room who is only recently dead due to a car crash. The doctors are able to revive the man, and bring him back to life so that he is stable and able to make a full recovery. A few weeks later the man gets his medical bill in the mail, but he protests the bill since he didn't choose to undergo the surgery that brought him back to life. Of course, that wouldn't get him out having to pay his bill. To be fair however, this is not to say that suicide is always irrational or unethical such as in case of extreme pain, torture, and the like, but we are talking about a person here who wants to be blotted from existence forever, even in the afterlife. Moreover, there do seem to be instances where being in a state of affairs that one didn't choose enables one with the right to end that state of affairs (i.e. non-consensual sex), but I would venture to guess that all such instances involve a moral wronging of some sort which is not analogous to the situation under consideration here. Our existence is a gift, not a forced rape.
Third, if Christian theism is true, then it is practically irrational for a human being to choose non-existence over existence with God in heaven forever. Practical reason is the use of reason to decide how to act. According to Immanuel Kant, practical rationality is the strategy for living one’s best possible life, and moreover, man's highest possible good is to achieve the happiness that arises out of perfect virtue and the meeting of all our biological needs. However, on Christian theism, Kant's highest possible good is only achievable if we accept God's gift of eternal life through faith in the His Son's life, death, and resurrection. Moreover, on Christian theism, the highest possible good is to have an intimate and unalloyed personal relationship with God forever in heaven, and out of this relationship flows Kant's highest good. So then, if our practical reason is meant to be used to decide how to act, and if the most rational thing to do is adopt the strategy for living one's best possible life, and if on Christian theism this type of life is not only possible, but actual, then it would be practically irrational to wish for ones non-existence since it would frustrate the attainment of the best possible life. So, for a person who feels like their life isn't worth living, instead of despairing, such a person should undertake the project of coming to believe that there is a God.
But, let us suppose that there exists such a right, and that such a right takes precedence over all other moral principles we might invoke. Well, in such a case, the moral thing to do is let that person have the option of choosing life, and more specifically, life with God in heaven, and if after denying such an opportunity, such a person wants to exercise their 'right' to be annihilated from existence forever, then God would grant them their wish. In fact, there are some theologians and philosophers who argue that this is what God will do for those persons who would go to hell, and so, we could also say that God would do the same for persons who simply want to be annihilated from existence, period.
In the end then, God hasn't wronged anyone in creating them, and I really believe that those who experience God, will know that it is better to exist and know the joy of relating personally to God rather than to have never had that opportunity and never existed at all.
--(G. K. Chesterton calls suicide "the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence". He argues that a person who kills himself, as far as he is concerned, destroys the entire world)
RSS Feed