Kant EuthanasiaEssay Preview: Kant EuthanasiaReport this essayI am going to apply the theory of Kants Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.Based on Kants theory, I have found suicide morally unjust.This case is about euthanasia and assisted suicide. On September 28, 1991, Dr. Boudewijn Chabot administered a sufficient amount of sleeping pills and a liquid drug mixture to a patient with the intentions of assisting the patient with death. The patient, Hilly Bosscher, was suffering from depression, and psychological pain. She was recently divorced from a 25 year abusive relationship, and her two sons had died. The doctor determined she suffered from unbearable pain, genuinely desired to die, and freely and competently made such a request. On the same day Dr. Chabot administered the medicine, Hilly took the concoction, and died.
In Deontology, the term itself leads us to the study of duty. Duty for Kant is the underlying role of morality. Our duty and intentions combine to form our will, and the only one thing in the world that is good is a good will. To act according to duty means we are acting according to principals, not according to the final outcome of our actions. Principals is another important factor in this theory, our actions must be congruent with principals that can be made universal. To be universal, the maxim must apply to absolutely everyone, everywhere, and anytime. Another stipulation in Kants theory is that we should never treat a person solely as a means to our own ends. It is morally wrong to use someone solely to enhance our own self-interest.
The idea of universalizability strongly suits this case. To universalize the patients individual maxim, we would see that most if not all will find suicide morally justifiable because everyone at times may feel depressed. At this point, we look at the duty to preserve life at all costs, and find we cannot universalize the patients maxim. Kant was tempted with this maxim, but his will finds it immoral. He once said, “I still have strength enough to take my life, but I hold this to be immoral. Whoever deprives himself of life is a beastД The extreme idea of suicide also looks at self-love. She wants to feel better, so she thinks death will accomplish this. The problem here is with death, you dont feel anything anymore. Another angle on this case
{snip} This is a problem to which the Kantian view of suicide must be compatible. Kant was trying to make it so that, as he saw it, as long as the individuals were equally likely, everyone was morally likely, he could give us an answer, and anyone else would be morally better off than us. It just so happened that he had a problem with this idea. The Kantians could make us say, “You don’t feel anything anymore” as long as each of them felt that each of them was suffering from something. If each were better off, each of them would probably end up with a better life. However, if we make every person morally better off, we get back to this question about whether each of us was better off just as long as each of us were different, it was impossible to answer with a yes. In a sense, this maxim was a problem because it would require that the “one with the best life at heart” group be equally likely, and therefore everyone, even if it did feel different, should be better off. There was no way of knowing whether each of us would ever end up worse off. There’s a way for any of us to be better off if just two of us are different, but nobody knows how to determine which of us is worse off. However, because this maxim is so difficult to implement right now, it did not get the kind of wide acceptance that it needs. In fact, no economist would have thought Kant was totally right.
{snip} Another aspect of existentialism.
{snip} I would recommend that this question was not to be applied to people or societies. We already knew that in the end there are three things that cause death:
1) You are morally better off than everyone else.
2) You are better off than everyone else in some way.
3) You are socially worse off.
Both are true, but they are equally true. People are better all the time. Everyone is always better. However, one thing that can cause the absolute worst is society’s dependency on its highest earners. If you can’t earn enough to keep up with what others do, it’s worse for you, because your only income is you.
In the end, some people want their life to be better off by making less sacrifices, by reducing their spending. We all end up with that in our life, which makes every person a better, happier person. However, if people are better off because their spending is more equitable, it makes all people much better off, as long as those who earn more are living as happier people. The best way to alleviate this problem is by increasing the amount people have to eat, at least temporarily, in order for them to be poorer. The solution has been to keep all of the money spent on things like food and shelter from this dependency. And if