Critiquing: #109 — Am I Guilty of My Friend’s Suicide?

March 17, 2022 | Ask NT Wright Anything

Key Terms:
Human rights — Ethical dilemmas — Christian ethics — Pastoral advice — Moral responsibility

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode demonstrates a generally accurate portrayal of theological perspectives, particularly those aligned with mainstream Christian doctrine. However, the accuracy could be improved by providing a more nuanced discussion of theological interpretations that differ from the speaker’s views. For instance, the claim that suicide is never part of God’s plan reflects a specific doctrinal stance that may not be universally accepted. Acknowledging alternative theological interpretations would enhance the overall accuracy.
Degree of Coherence	B-	The content is mostly coherent, with a logical progression through various ethical and theological questions. However, some segments lack clear transitions, making the flow between topics somewhat disjointed. For example, the shift from discussing the moral implications of participating in the Qatar World Cup to the theological implications of suicide could have been more clearly articulated, perhaps by explicitly linking these discussions under the broader theme of moral responsibility in a broken world. The coherence would benefit from stronger connective tissue between these different moral dilemmas.
Absence of Fallacies	C+	While the discussion is largely free of overt logical fallacies, there are moments where the reasoning relies heavily on assumed theological premises without fully engaging with potential counterarguments. This can be seen in the treatment of suicide, where the argument presupposes a particular view of divine providence and moral culpability without sufficiently exploring other perspectives, such as those that might emphasize psychological factors over moral failing. This reliance on unexamined assumptions could be perceived as a form of begging the question, where the argument’s conclusion is presupposed by its premises.
Degree of Evidence	C	The episode primarily draws on anecdotal evidence and theological interpretations, which, while valuable within a faith-based context, may not suffice for a rigorous examination of the ethical issues discussed. For example, the discussion about working with cell lines derived from aborted fetuses would be strengthened by referencing specific ethical guidelines or studies that address the moral implications of such research. Additionally, the claims about the impact of sin on global events like the World Cup could be supported by empirical data or historical analysis to ground the theological assertions in observable reality. The degree of evidence is further weakened by the lack of engagement with opposing viewpoints or the absence of citations from scholarly sources.
Degree of Testability	D+	The claims made in the episode, particularly those concerning divine will and moral responsibility, are inherently difficult to test due to their reliance on theological doctrine. This makes it challenging to evaluate these claims through empirical or rational means. For example, the assertion that “suicide is never in God’s plan” is not a proposition that can be tested or falsified in any scientific or philosophical sense, limiting its usefulness in a rigorous analytical context. To improve testability, the discussion could incorporate more measurable aspects of the ethical issues at hand, such as the psychological factors that contribute to suicidal behavior or the sociocultural impacts of participating in events like the World Cup.
Rational Confidence	C-	The confidence expressed in the episode often seems disproportionate to the strength of the evidence and reasoning presented. The discussion tends to convey a high degree of certainty in its theological assertions, such as the belief that one can discern God’s will regarding complex moral issues. However, this confidence does not always align with the degree of ambiguity and uncertainty inherent in the topics discussed. For instance, the assumption that certain actions could definitively prevent a tragedy like suicide does not account for the myriad of factors involved in such decisions. The rational confidence would be more justified if it acknowledged the limitations of human understanding in the face of profound ethical and theological dilemmas, emphasizing the need for humility and ongoing inquiry rather than definitive conclusions.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Testability

“I don’t believe suicide is ever in God’s plan for somebody’s life.“

The central issue with this statement lies in its lack of testability. It presents a theological claim that cannot be empirically verified, making it inaccessible to those who seek evidence-based reasoning. While this may be persuasive within a community that shares the same theological assumptions, it excludes those who might approach the topic from a different religious or secular perspective. This limits the argument’s appeal and effectiveness in broader, more pluralistic contexts. The episode could have benefited from a more nuanced discussion that explores the implications of this belief while acknowledging its inherent subjectivity.

2. Absence of Fallacies

“She wonders if she didn’t respond in the way that maybe would have changed things…“

This reasoning exemplifies the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc—assuming that a specific event is the direct result of a previous action simply because it followed it. This oversimplification risks attributing causality where it may not exist, particularly in the complex and multifaceted issue of suicide. By suggesting that a different response could have prevented the suicide, the argument inadvertently assigns disproportionate moral responsibility to individual actions without considering the broader context of mental health and personal autonomy. The episode could have avoided this fallacy by emphasizing the unpredictable nature of such tragedies and the limitations of individual influence.

3. Degree of Evidence

“The more we know about life in the womb, the more it seems to me that is the God-given life already there.“

This statement, while reflecting a deeply held belief, lacks empirical support and is presented without reference to relevant scientific or theological sources. The argument relies heavily on a subjective interpretation of prenatal life, which may not resonate with all listeners. To strengthen this claim, the episode could have cited specific studies from developmental biology that explore the stages of fetal development, or referenced theological works that discuss the concept of ensoulment or the sanctity of life. This would provide a more robust foundation for the argument and make it more persuasive to a wider audience.

---

Formulations of Major Arguments

Argument #1: Theological Interpretation of Suicide

• Premise 1: God has a plan for every individual’s life.
• Premise 2: Suicide is not part of God’s plan.
• Premise 3: Actions contrary to God’s plan are influenced by sin or human weakness.
• Premise 4: Suicide results from sin or human weakness.
• Conclusion: Therefore, suicide is not divinely ordained and results from deviation from God’s plan.

Counter-Argument:
The claim that suicide is never part of God’s plan presupposes a deterministic view of divine providence, which may not be universally accepted across all theological traditions. For example, in certain interpretations of free will, God’s plan could encompass the possibility of human error, including tragic decisions like suicide. This perspective allows for a more nuanced understanding of human autonomy and the complexity of moral agency. Furthermore, the argument does not adequately consider the role of mental illness, which can severely impair an individual’s ability to make rational decisions. By framing suicide solely as a deviation from divine will, the argument risks oversimplifying a profoundly complex issue and neglecting the compassionate response required in the face of mental health struggles.

Argument #2: Moral Responsibility and Suicide

• Premise 1: Individuals can influence the mental state of others through their actions.
• Premise 2: A person’s actions can prevent or contribute to another’s decision to commit suicide.
• Premise 3: The absence of action or incorrect response can result in feelings of guilt and moral responsibility.
• Conclusion: Therefore, one may bear moral responsibility for another’s suicide if their actions or inactions influenced the decision.

Counter-Argument:
This argument places significant weight on the moral responsibility of individuals to influence the mental well-being of others, which could be seen as an overly deterministic and individualistic approach. It fails to consider the multitude of external factors—such as societal pressures, mental illness, and genetic predispositions—that contribute to suicidal behavior. While it is true that our actions can have an impact on others, the argument does not account for the autonomy of the person who ultimately makes the decision. Moreover, it risks creating an unrealistic expectation that individuals can or should have complete control over the mental health outcomes of others. A more balanced approach would recognize the importance of offering support and compassion, while also acknowledging the inherent limits of our ability to prevent tragic outcomes in the lives of others.

Argument #3: Divine Will and Moral Agency

• Premise 1: God’s will is sovereign and encompasses all events in the world.
• Premise 2: Human actions are influenced by divine will.
• Premise 3: Some human actions appear to contradict moral principles.
• Conclusion: Therefore, human actions that contradict moral principles are still within the scope of divine will.

Counter-Argument:
This argument hinges on a paradoxical interpretation of divine sovereignty, where even morally questionable actions are considered part of God’s plan. This creates a tension between the belief in a benevolent God and the existence of evil or suffering in the world. Critics might argue that this view undermines the concept of moral responsibility, as it implies that all actions, including those that cause harm, are divinely sanctioned. A more rigorous approach would involve distinguishing between God’s permissive will (allowing certain events to occur) and His directive will (actively causing events). This distinction would help reconcile the existence of moral evil with the belief in a just and loving deity, while still preserving the importance of human moral agency.

◉ Addressing Argument #1:

The Absurdity of Blaming Humans for Avoiding Pain

In the Christian narrative, suicide is often depicted as a result of human weakness—a deviation from divine will, influenced by sin or moral failing. This characterization is not only flawed but deeply problematic, as it fails to consider the fundamental human instinct to avoid extreme pain. To label the act of ending one’s life to escape unbearable suffering as a “weakness” either trivializes the term to the point of meaninglessness or strips it of any negative connotation, thereby absolving the act from moral condemnation.

If we consider weakness in its most trivial sense, as an inherent part of human frailty, then labeling suicide as a product of weakness is a tautology—an obvious truth that adds nothing to the discussion. Of course, humans are weak; we are finite beings with limited tolerance for pain. But to stop at this observation is to evade the ethical question entirely. It is akin to saying that water is wet or fire is hot. Such a statement, while true, does nothing to explain or justify the moral judgment often attached to the act of suicide.

On the other hand, if we use weakness to imply a moral failing, we face an even greater problem. Avoiding pain is not a moral defect; it is an intrinsic part of our biological and psychological makeup. The drive to escape pain is as fundamental as the drive to seek nourishment or shelter. To condemn someone for acting on this instinct is not just absurd—it is a violation of every conceivable standard of human culpability. It suggests that suffering should be endured for its own sake, a notion that is not only cruel but entirely unsupported by any rational ethical framework.

The Christian insistence on viewing suicide through the lens of sin and moral weakness reveals a deep misunderstanding of human nature. It conflates the unavoidable realities of our condition with moral failings, thereby imposing guilt where there should be compassion. To blame a person for ending their life in the face of overwhelming pain is to ignore the fundamental truth that no one is obligated to suffer endlessly. This perspective fails to recognize the legitimacy of the human desire to avoid pain and, in doing so, perpetuates a harmful narrative that further alienates those already in the depths of despair.

In conclusion, the characterization of suicide as a weakness—whether trivially true or morally charged—fails to account for the complexity of human suffering and the legitimate desire to escape it. The real absurdity lies in the expectation that individuals should endure extreme pain without seeking relief, even when that relief comes in the form of ending their own lives. Such a stance is not only ethically indefensible but also profoundly inhumane. The conversation around suicide needs to shift from one of blame and condemnation to one of understanding and support, recognizing that the choice to avoid pain is not a weakness, but a reflection of our shared humanity.

---

I warmly invite you to discuss this topic further in the comments section. Your thoughts and perspectives are valued and contribute to the richness of this dialogue.