Thank you, Dylan Atkin, for such a crucial question.
In order to answer this question, we need a conception of a “sound mind”. Do we mean a person who is in full control of their cognitive capacities? Or someone who is emotionally stable? Or someone who holds the appropriate values and attitudes that we expect from a “sound mind”?
That said, I will take a different approach, as the question gives me an opportunity to talk about the very interesting and unnerving case of Mitchell Heisman. Heisman wrote an 1800-page suicide note, complete with references and footnotes, before committing suicide. In that note he argued against any and all Western values, such as freedom, equality, justice, etc. From his point of view, if we carry these values to their logical extremes, we reach the conclusion that none of them matter. Further, if we truly seek objectivity, we ought to question the one principle that seems not to have been questioned at all: the need for survival.
It could be argued that self-survival is at the heart of all of our endeavors, human and non-human living beings alike. A bacteria moves to find sources of energy, a mammal hunts another animal, plants turn towards the sun, human beings create complicated economic and social systems that ultimately serve this very need. Heisman’s point is that without questioning the basis of all economic, philosophical, and social systems, we cannot truly reach an objective view of the universe. Our understanding of ourselves and the world is shaped by our unending drive for self-survival.
Now, most people, including myself, would not agree with Heisman’s arguments or conclusions. There seems to be something uncanny about a person who no longer wishes to survive. But can we truly say that he is “not of a sound mind”? His points make sense given his premises; he can articulate his points, construct arguments, try to convince his readers, etc. These are abilities that are not usually associated with an unsound mind. This is one example that shows that there can indeed be a sound mind that is suicidal.
Another example would be patients who request euthanasia or assisted suicide, who are terminally ill and face months of excruciating pain with no hope for a cure. It would be absurd to claim that such people are “not in their right minds”. The right for euthanasia has been recognized by a few countries, such as Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Canada, although under very strict conditions. In the rest of the world it remains illegal. It seems that different countries have different conceptions of a “sound mind” and what a person can be allowed to decide with respect to their lives. In the UK, assissted suicide is considered a criminal offence, punishable by 14 years of imprisonment.
In sum, there doesn’t seem to be any consensus with regard to what a sound mind is, so the question remains somewhat unanswered. The task of philosophy is to dig deeper into these questions, rather than trying to give an ultimate answer.
What do you think? Can someone be both suicidal and sound of mind? Let us know in the comments.
And, as always, if you have a question for the Armchair Philosophers, don’t hesitate to get in touch. You could send us a message or fill in this form.
Be sure to check out our podcast!
If you like what we do, you can support us by buying us a coffee!
Image: Le Suicidé, by Édouard Manet (c1877)
I completed my MA and PhD at the Philosophy Department of Boğaziçi University. My main areas of research are history of philosophy, social and political philosophy, and moral philosophy. My dissertation was on Kant's account of conscience, so I had to work through most of Kant's texts. He is my favorite philosopher because he revolutionized the philosophical scene in Europe and still continues to be influential to this day. He was one of the first philosophers to work out a comprehensive system which integrates several areas of philosophy, and he has given me a remarkable sense of what philosophy can be.
From the evolutionary perspective of the individual, once someone is in continuous pain, it’s a lot, and their brain can’t deal with it (usually by crying), negative learning slows greatly. The brain has to use bizarre methods to learn not to do certain things, and generally take much longer then sadness. Punishments like timeout take much longer than spanking to have their effect. Producing results on fear teaches avoidance and not getting caught. Producing self hatred is another, faster learning method, but can result in suicide. Self hatred and fear are the inferior evolutionary replacements for sadness.
Religion can be used as a fear based alternative to much, much worse methods like extreme laws, and debilitating preventative measures, that generally eliminates the possibility of avoiding getting caught.
Restoring sadness by spanking, quickly to prevent fear learning as much as possible, at childhood instead of timeout makes sense to me for all religions that love their children. Shorter sadness inducing punishments beat years in prison, especially if someone doesn’t know the law. Protective measures are used because Miranda Rights prevented quick resolution of guilt in the U.S. making the measures go on for way too long.
Catholicism teaches confession which might circumvent the harmful Miranda Rights Supreme Court case years ago if someone can feel true sadness for their sin. Pride and despair prevent this from working. Showing that a loved one was harmed by something done, will usually defeat pride. Despair, I’m guessing, is usually caused by too much sex (if it despair occurs without drugs.). If Catholic law was followed to the letter, it would reduce enough despair so it could be processed as sadness. Isn’t it interesting that Catholicism has been around since before Justinian I’s rule in 533ad.