For the purposes of this essay, the assumption will be that there is no afterlife and no God. In a sense, eliminating the concept of God dissolves the question of sin and guilt. This is why a relativist position will be adopted and the absolutist position will be rejected. The question of cowardice should also be addressed, because undoubtedly a soldier who is heading towards certain death is not a coward and few people would be capable of harming themselves. The taking of life can be considered under three categories, as an exercise in rational philosophical thought, as an action whose limits are proscribed by law, and finally in a theological sense. It is also useful and imperative to allude to the fact that suicide is only one form of extinction of life and that in a social context other forms of extinction of life are accepted and sometimes rendered necessary for a particular event. A social position will therefore be adopted to demarcate the limits and the supposed morality or immorality of suicide. For example, the Augustinian view of suicide is based on the sixth commandment: ? you will not kill? But one could also argue that Jesus committed suicide by giving his life for others, whereas Augustine would accept him as the son of God and attribute to him foresight and the ability to save himself. The translation of the sixth commandment is ? you will not kill illegally? and the whole moral idea is further made ambiguous by the fact that suicide is not condemned in the Bible, notably the suicide of Judas Iscariot. The Catholic idea of ​​double effect, that death must have a positive outcome, is open to debate, to the extent that we can actually differentiate between martyrdom, self-sacrifice and suicide, despite the intention of the death. agent of death. Jesus himself declared and implemented? There is no greater love than to lay down your life for another. However, if we take an epistemological stance and assume as a premise that we lack prior evidence of the implications of death, suicide is still an irrational conclusion. Since we cannot understand the superintelligent or conceive of intelligence, due to the parameters of our own minds overriding those of our worldview, it is certainly impossible to determine a superhuman perspective or prerogative and apply it . Deontological arguments can produce little evidence that supports their hypothesis that suicide is in any way credible. Aristotle's claim that suicide was detrimental to the state is also improbable, because the large number of suicides received little recognition except in an insular sense that involved the grief of loved ones, but in reality, the death of a person by his own hands is of no importance to the state or the machinery by which it functions. Morality, in the sense of government, therefore shows complicity with popular opinion and seeks to express it through law and is open to transmute and revise its definitions according to the demands of society. Suicide is either required or permitted based on the individual agent's view of what morality is or any other rational argument they make. Bibliography: Battin, Margaret. “Least worst death?” ". Oxford, 1994Grant, Richard B. “Morality and Rationality of Suicide? of Moral Questions ed. Rachel, James. Locke, James. ? Two treaties for the government? chapter 2.Nagel, Thomas. ? Deadly Questions?, chapter 1.Rachels, James. ? Active and passive euthanasia? of Moral Questions ed. Rachel, James Warburton, Nigel. ?Philosophy: the basics?. Second edition, Routledge, 1995