Albert Camus had once written “There is but only one true philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental questions of philosophy.” This claim holds profound relevance as it encompasses the rudimentary elements and ideas of life. In context, however, it poses to ask whether life at large is worth living or not, but I see it in a different perspective. The question before us is whether we want to embrace the tradition of our society and not necessarily make it the only and dominant tradition. The idea of suicide, at a perfunctory glance may be altogether cowardly, but is it not really the premises of suicide that should really decide the relevance or meaning of the act? To condemn a situation without judging the set of events that precede it is but an act of foolhardy rashness.
Of a person, who has been continuously held back by series of rather unfortunate set backs and thus left unsure of his future endeavors, suicide poses itself as a rather quick and easy remedy. This is really a very tricky situation because the premises or determinants of well being set by his standards may vary from those of the norm. These standards surely offer flexibility for professional judgment but there are situations which are not so dubious and a common judgment to those can be availed. I have heard of various incidents of suicide or attempts of suicide where it appears to be the best decisive act.
A friend once told me of this fire accident that he had witnessed. A commercial building had somehow caught fire in the middle of the night and my friend who happened to have a warehouse in that building had to rush there immediately. What he saw that night were horrific realities that surface only in the close proximity of death. The fire had started on the second floor and was fast rising up. Three unfortunate victims got stuck in the 3rd floor. With no help approaching, they decided to jump off. It is obvious that in spite of what may seem like suicide they had only chosen an alternate/’preferable’ means to their ends. They only decided to end it quickly instead of being subject to prolonged suffering. In doing so, I believe they had undertaken an act of bravery.
But that is not the point of the incident. After two of the victims had jumped, the third could not decide whether or not he too shall jump. The direct consequence (immediate death) of the act had left him dubious. What had seemed like a cure was now nothing but exercising vanity. Judging the premises of suicide is a very delicate matter.
Social standards demean suicide. The laws try to prevent it. But, the implication that there are people who would not commit suicide because of the social stigma or the illegitimacy associated with it, is to me, the punch line of a very flat joke. It is only logical that a person, who has decided to end his life, does not bother much about such things as the law, and he definitely cannot be too pleased with people to care much for what they think is best for him to do. A person who has decided that suicide is a reasonable option cannot simply be expected to differentiate right and wrong through such social standards; his decision is an embodiment of his denial to those values.
