Kant Suicide

It is apparent in this case that the issue in question is the act of killing and the act of suicide. However, unlike other cases of killing and suicide, there are several things that serve to complicate this issue. First is the fact that the murder appears to be done with consent coming from the person killed. Based from the letter Adrienne wrote to her children, it is clear that both she and Mr. Snelling discussed their plans to end their life together. Apart from this, the fact that the wife was sick with a disease that would gravely affect her day-to-day activities as well as that of her family is also something that must be considered. Also, it must also be pointed out that right after killing his wife, Mr. Snelling promptly committed suicide.
Snelling did only do so because of the particulars of the situation. They believe that the act was morally permissible due to the fact that Adrienne had Alzheimer's and that she had agreed to end her life. In addition to this, the killing and suicide appears to be done in order to mitigate further suffering. However, if one looks at Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, it is evident that this type of analysis is flawed. According to Kant, the rightness or wrongness of an action does not rest upon the particulars of the situation. Therefore, if one were to use Kantian ideas, Mr. Snelling’s actions cannot be deemed morally right only based on the unique circumstances of his situation. With this, it is therefore necessary to further look at the complexities of the issue and to identify how ethical theories may either support or discredit the moral rightness of Mr. Snelling’s acts. Among the pertinent details of the issue, the fact that the killing and suicide was planned and agreed upon seems to be one of the things that stand out the most in this issue. Looking at Adrienne’s letter to her children, it is evident that the killing and suicide had been planned by the
With this, it can therefore be deduced that Mr. and Mrs. Snelling chose to end their lives in order to avoid further suffering. At first glance, one might say that this is in agreement with the greatest happiness principle and can therefore be considered morally right. However, if one were to consider how Mill defined the greatest happiness principle, one would see that Mr. Snelling’s act does not actually agree with utilitarian principles. According to Mill, a morally right act is one that maximizes happiness. Here, maximizing happiness refers to both its quantity and quality. Looking at what Mr. Snelling did, it is apparent that it does not promote general happiness. No child would find happiness in his parent’s death. In addition to this, the quality of happiness that Mr. Snelling’s acts produced cannot be deemed of high worth. It can be argued that only living people feel happiness and therefore, once Mr. and Mrs. Snelling chose to end their life, they also chose to end