If suicide is the very serious philosophical problem, why doesn't "philosophy of suicide" have its own branch? [closed]

Question

I don't mean Suicidology because that's science, not philosophy. I don't mean Ethics or Moral Philosophy because that's not 100% suicide.

1. If suicide is veritably serious, why isn't it a separate branch?

2. I perused Harvard, MIT, and Oxford philosophy department faculty pages. But I don't see "philosophy of suicide". I screenshot Oxford. Why "Philosophy of Cognitive Science" ... "Philosophy of Science", but no "Philosophy of Suicide"?

I never took French after high school but don't want to rely on translation. Le Mythe de Sysyphe: Chapitre 1

Il n'y a qu'un problème philosophique vraiment sérieux : c'est le suicide. Juger que la vie vaut ou ne vaut pas la peine d'être vécue, c'est répondre à la question fondamentale de la philosophie. Le reste, si le monde a trois dimensions, si l'esprit a neuf ou douze catégories, vient ensuite. Ce sont des jeux ; il faut d'abord répondre. Et s'il est vrai, comme le veut Nietzsche, qu'un philosophe, pour être estimable, doive prêcher d'exemple, on saisit l'importance de cette réponse puisqu'elle va précéder le geste définitif. Ce sont là des évidences sensibles au cœur, mais qu'il faut approfondir pour les rendre claires à l'esprit.

Answer 1

Not every problem or issue requires its own separate philosophy. Suicide is widely regarded (and has traditionally been regarded) as a moral problem or issue. Therefore it falls within ethics or moral philosophy, the inquiry which deals with suicide, and with the different but related issue of euthanasia which is sometimes called 'voluntary suicide' (a usage I merely note without endorsing), as well as a broad variety of deep-down connected moral problems or issues such as abortion, lying, human cloning, capital punishment. It (1) analyses these conceptually (getting a clear definition of them - descriptive ethics) and (2) considers whether or under what conditions they can be justified (normative ethics). (1) and (2) belong to ethics or moral philosophy though not all ethicists are concerned with both. (Some ethicists keep to (1) because they believe that philosophy cannot adjudicate normative matters; others deny the possibility of (1) on the grounds that a purely descriptive, non-normative language is impossible. We need not settle the question here, even if we could. I mention it merely to bracket it out of the discussion. Here I limit myself to the prima facie.)

The philosophy of cognitive science and the philosophy of science also involve a broad variety of connected problems or issues; cognitive science has its own philosophy because it involves distinctive problems and issues within science. The big difference between (a) the philosophy of cognitive science and the philosophy of science and (b) suicide is precisely that (a) involve the study of a broad variety of connected problems or issues. Suicide by contrast is only one problem or issue whatever sub-topics it breaks up into; and as such, as indicated above, it slots into the broad variety of connected problems or issues with which ethics or moral philosophy deals.

'Ethics' and 'moral philosophy' are usually taken to be convertible terms - we can use one or the other; they are the same inquiry under different names. Not all will agree with this but, rightly or wrongly, it is still (I think) the majority view.

Answer 2

This question is mostly about the nature of academia. Many topics, especially those bearing on psychology, ethics, theology, sociology, and free will, are fruitful areas of philosophical investigation, at least under a broader, more traditional philosophical purview.

Suicide would certainly fit the bill. I would tend to agree that it is an important and promising topic from many perspectives, especially in its implications for free will, a primary concern of the existentialists like Camus. And it may even come to have increasing importance as science, medicine, genetics, identity, AI, and such evolve.

But "branches" of philosophy are not established by administrative decree. Or if they are, most philosophers never got that memo. If enough interesting writings and debates arise, books and conferences will follow, and at last some publisher, seeking to unveil a bandwagon, will entitle a collection "The Philosophy of Suicide." Then a wealthy, suicidal plutocrat will donate for the establishment of a chair or department. Voila!

Having said that, suicide is kind of an individualistic, single-issue niche within the broader questions of ethics, identity, freedom, and mortality. It is not likely to interest most academic philosophers today, except in essayistic treatments. And it does not present good opportunities for original and "winnable" debates, since the "pro" side will be largely absent.