Kantian Pro Euthanasia
Without a doubt, there are forces that exist within the realms of right and wrong. This understanding of what right and wrong is is the back bone of moral philosophy, and its fundamental aim to decipher whether or not our actions lie on either side of these realms. Immanuel Kant states that these are not the only facets of morality (Lee). We must also further ask ourselves “what we ought to do,” in our case, to follow the the good will. In question, I debate whether euthanasia is an act of true good will to end suffering or if it is wrong to end a life in any circumstance. To be better moral and ethical beings, and to pursue what the philosophers call “the higher good,” we must take upon ourselves to end suffering in the face of imminent death, despite our prior connections to the life or personal beliefs.
First and foremost, before addressing any claims as to what a moral action is, we must first have a basic understanding of what exactly constitutes a moral and an immoral action. In Immanuel Kant’s groundwork in morals, it states that an action can only be deemed moral if and only if devoid of all ulterior motive (Guthrie). With this said, we can safely say, killing anyone loved or otherwise, for any sort of gain is immoral, and therefore lacks virtue and the good will. More often than not, we will also come to a conclusion that we must choose life; we care too much about the ones we love to see them leave us, or even face the inevitability of death that will come soon after the immense suffering. Though as noble as saving a life may seem, this is not moral. As Kant’s First Categorical Imperative states, never treat someone as a means to an end, rather only as a means to an end to themselves. The maxims that drive our actions, in the endeavor to sustain the life of a suffering person, though however noble our intentions may be, are still only hypothetical imperatives that cater to our own selfish need to keep the lives that we cherish.
It can also be argued
First and foremost, before addressing any claims as to what a moral action is, we must first have a basic understanding of what exactly constitutes a moral and an immoral action. In Immanuel Kant’s groundwork in morals, it states that an action can only be deemed moral if and only if devoid of all ulterior motive (Guthrie). With this said, we can safely say, killing anyone loved or otherwise, for any sort of gain is immoral, and therefore lacks virtue and the good will. More often than not, we will also come to a conclusion that we must choose life; we care too much about the ones we love to see them leave us, or even face the inevitability of death that will come soon after the immense suffering. Though as noble as saving a life may seem, this is not moral. As Kant’s First Categorical Imperative states, never treat someone as a means to an end, rather only as a means to an end to themselves. The maxims that drive our actions, in the endeavor to sustain the life of a suffering person, though however noble our intentions may be, are still only hypothetical imperatives that cater to our own selfish need to keep the lives that we cherish.
It can also be argued
Cited: "Immanuel Kant." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Ed. P. Guyer and A. Wood. N.p., 20 May 2010. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. . Guthrie, Shandon L. "Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative." Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. N.p., 03 Nov. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. . Lee, Harrison. "Kant - Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals." Kant - Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. N.p., 13 May 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. .