Preview

Euthanasia: Kantianism vs Utilitarianism

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1611 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Euthanasia: Kantianism vs Utilitarianism
The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future. In this case, killing the person would seem to be the most humane and reasonable thing to do, whereas keeping the person alive would be akin to torture; which is also presumed to be a fundamental evil act. But euthanasia, in essence, is murder, and this might lead one to ask whether there can ever be an exception to murder? And if one were to make an exception in this case, what would then prevent us from making exceptions in other cases? In the worst case scenario, would this not leave an opening for cold-blooded murders to kill people without their consent, and make false claims that they did have their consent?

There are a variety of positions, based on the numerous ethical theories that have been developed, that one can take in order to resolve the issue of euthanasia; but the positions I will be looking at in particular, are the positions based on John Stuart Mill 's 'Utilitarianism ' ethical theory, and Immanuel Kant 's 'Categorical Imperative ' ethical theory. According to Utilitarianism, euthanasia can be morally justified, whereas according to Kantianism, euthanasia is not morally justifiable; but I will argue that neither position provides an adequate resolution to the issue, due to the significant flaws that are



Cited: Mill, J.S. (1984). Excerpts from Utilitarianism, On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government, 1, 4-42. London: Dent. Kant, I. (1956). Excerpts from Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, trans. H.J. Paton, 61-62, 64-67, 74, 80-92, 95-107. London: Unwin Hyman. Reprinted in E. Sober, Core Question in Philosophy: A Text with Readings, 520-540. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2001.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    Mill and Kant Boat Problem

    • 1373 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Imagine a situation where there is a boat full of “good” citizens, and a boat full of “bad” citizens and each boat has a bomb with a detonator in the hands of the other boat. Defining “good” or “bad” is challenging enough, and while analyzing both Kant and Mill one will see that the complexity of the issue cannot be adequately solved by either argument for what one “ought” to do. In the first case, which will be that they are both on the same ship, full of “good” citizens each offers their arguments. Kant argues, “We should not simply destroy individuals simply because our own lives are in danger, for we must do what is good in itself.” Mill, being a utilitarian disagrees with this argument and offers his own argument for what the passengers ought to do. He begins, “We ought to pursue the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, and since we do seek happiness as an end in itself. Being upstanding citizens, we are more valuable to society and can produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number if we push the detonator and go home.” Although there are respectable points in each argument, one can determine that neither argument is sufficient for solving the puzzle because there is no winning.…

    • 1373 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In order to fully understand the “euthanasia debate,” it is crucial to look at our two main theoretical camps: deontological or “Kantian” ethics, and teleological or “utilitarian” ethics. Both sides make valid points regarding this bioethical issue. Therefore, in order to form your own opinion/make conclusions on this matter, it is crucial to have substantial knowledge regarding the assertions on both sides of the argument – this is the only way in which to truly make sound arguments/draw valid conclusions.…

    • 2205 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Sexist vs Misanthrope

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages

    References: Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785] (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed. Hackett.…

    • 1018 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    References: Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals. In J. Bennett (Ed. & Trans.), Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfs/kant1785.pdf (Original work published in 1785).…

    • 756 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Cited: Foot, Philippa. "Euthanasia." Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues. 2nd ed. Eds. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. 790-805…

    • 1384 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Those who support active euthanasia can argue that helping the ill to bring their own deaths, allowing them to determine the how and when, is not only a human act but also allows the person, who is "living to die," to maintain their dignity; this way, they will let them die in peace, rather than suffer to the end. Because if not, they think of themselves as a disgrace, to those they love. According to recent researches and surveys, many Canadians would agree to this, but my question is, have they taken a close look at the ethical debate? Those who are against active euthanasia would say not, and would argue that by participating in the practice of active euthanasia, they are "playing God," or perhaps, that they are not acting out of mercy, therefore, the act is nothing less than cold-blooded murder. Murder by the law is defined as; "The unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another." Euthanasia, in Canada, remains unlawful as of today, and the act of euthanasia is premeditated, whether for the purpose of mercy or not, euthanasia is, by definition, murder. According to Kantian perspective established by Kant the philosopher, and the Holy Bible, murder is both a sin and a crime, therefore we ought not participate in the practice of euthanasia, because it is murder, and it is the wrong thing to do.…

    • 1203 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Nazi Prisoner Doctors

    • 467 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Mill, J. S. (1863). “Utilitarianism.” Exploring philosophy: an introductory anthology (4th ed., pp. 420-427). New York: Oxford University Press.…

    • 467 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Euthanasia advocates Patients are constantly receiving criticism from those who believe that euthanasia is not ethical and should be illegal everywhere. Euthanasia can be defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease. The practice of euthanasia is illegal in most countries. Euthanasia can be either voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary. Voluntary euthanasia occurs when the patient requests to die. Non-voluntary euthanasia occurs when a patient is either unconscious or unable to make a choice regarding their death and an appropriate person makes this decision for them. Involuntary euthanasia occurs when the patient wishes to live but is killed anyway and is considered murder. There are different…

    • 991 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Euthanasia and suicide have a long history of producing polarized opinions. Although neither explicitly used the word euthanasia, eighteenth-century philosophers David Hume and Immanuel Kant's opposed views on the morality of suicide pertain greatly to the modern debate. It is safe to say, when considering the arguments proposed by either philosopher, that David Hume would be greatly in favour whereas Kant would be vehemently opposed. Both philosophers use the same criteria to frame their argument; both men agree that suicide can only be considered morally wrong if it constitutes a transgression of our duty either to society or ourselves (both philosophers also mention our duty to God, but these theological discussions do not pertain to the modern debate on euthanasia). Hume, in his essay On Suicide, concludes that suicidal-acts do not transgress either of these duties. Kant, contrarily, concludes in both Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, as well as his Metaphysics of Morals, that suicidal-acts transgress both.…

    • 1661 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Teleology, an explanation of phenomena by the purpose they serve rather than postulated causes, has found its place in the construction of many systems of morality such as John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism. In teleological approaches to morality, questions of right and wrong, or the notion what an individual ought to do, are determined by the consequences of a given action. One thinker to reject this idea of consequentialism was Immanuel Kant. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant endeavors to establish a system of ethics that has no trace of the empirical nature of utilitarianism. To him, “the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it and so too does not lie in any principle of action that needs to borrow its motive from this expected effect” (Groundwork, 56). Rather than determine moral worth based on cause and effect, Kant seeks to establish a supreme moral principle that is universal in nature, lacking any inkling of desires or inclinations that are subjective to the experiences of the individual. This principle must precede any sort of empirical knowledge, and must therefore be based upon a priori intuitions of our reason. Mill, on the other hand, refutes the idea of this a priori basis of ethics. In his work, Utilitarianism, Mill argues that moral worth must be determined on the bases of a fundamental principle based upon learned experience, namely the Principle of Utility. Under said principle, actions are to be judged on the nature of their outcome, not on their relation to a supreme imperative. In this paper I will reconstruct Kant’s critique of teleology in moral matters, followed by a response to said critique based on the principles that Mill lays out in Utilitarianism. Ultimately, I will show that, while Mill’s defense is valid, Kant’s minimal and universal system of morality provides a far more sensible approach to examining how humans ought to act.…

    • 1714 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Kant Immanuel, Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals, Third Edition, Hackett Publishing Company Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, 1993, Original Publication, 1785…

    • 1614 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Phil Kant Paper

    • 1299 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is not an easy read. Kant’s writing is very dense and he uses a unique vocabulary. I am going to try to explain Kant’s three Propositions, and then show how the third Proposition follows from the first two. It’s hard at a glance to see how they are connected, but I am going to try to clarify the text so we can see it more clearly. We will also look at examples that can help give us a better understanding of the text.…

    • 1299 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Ethics Critical Thinking

    • 5300 Words
    • 20 Pages

    Kant, I. (1997). Lectures on ethics (P. Heat, Trans.). P. Heath and J. B. Schneewind (eds.), Cambridge:…

    • 5300 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    Kant would refer to the categorical imperatives when making his decision. “His first formulation of categorical imperative talks about man being a rational being; since he is a rational being, he has no right to formulate such a maxim like “if I am in a terrible condition, I have the right to take my life or reserve the right to the doctor or my family members”” (Odianosen 9). When talking about Kant, Odianosen clearly agrees and supports that the categorical imperatives point in the direction away from any sort of euthanasia. In this quote that Odianosen uses, he is stating that the rational part of humans shall not call for something as ridicules as euthanasia. Of course Catholics and Kant believe in stopping human euthanasia, but Kant’s peculiar reasoning behind this is quite different from a Catholic’s thought of not disrespecting God’s holy creations. In An Introduction to Catholic Ethics by Longtin and Peach, thoroughly explain that in Kantian ethics, one must follow the moral law for the sake of the moral law itself. This means that one must not use euthanasia not because it may be considered murder and not because it might disrespect God, but because euthanasia in itself is unethical. Since murder is also a universal law, people cannot simply use someone as a means to an end meaning that is euthanasia is wanted mainly because insurance money is given out more quickly. Indeed, although their reasoning may be different, overall Catholics and Kant would…

    • 1172 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    Antigone

    • 1169 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Euthanasia is a topic that is rarely covered in the news. The moral ramifications of killing someone, even for the sake of mercy, seems too heavy of a topic for in depth discussion. No one wants to think about the day they will die, however when someone becomes terminally ill it can soon become their only thought. When pain and suffering enter this scenario, the option of ending a life more quickly may also enter the thought process. According to Life and Hope Network “9% of all deaths in America are caused by Euthanasia” 1 We are given the gift of life at birth. I believe Euthanasia is a violation of the most precious gift we are given… life…

    • 1169 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays