Immanuel Kant's View On Suicide Is Morally Wrong

"Suicide, what a terrible concept. There are two types of suicide: physical, and theoretical. Physical suicide is the more commonly heard type of suicide. It entails the person actually, physically killing himself or herself. On the other hand, theoretical suicide is when the person does something that will, in turn, get him or her killed. For example, in “All About Suicide” by Luisa Valenzuela, Ismael, a man that works at a minister’s office, murders the minister, a high-ranking public official. Ismael has been forced to be quiet by the government; therefore he lashes out by killing the minister so that he can reveal the truth about the government. In doing this, Ismael technically “kills himself” because he knows the government

Suicide under circumstances of extreme suffering is the morally right action as opposed to the alternative, living in pain. J.S. Mill’s Utilitarian ideals provide strong reasoning to support suicide in instances of severe pain, while Kant’s moral theory of the categorical imperative provides reasoning against taking one’s own life. Mill’s principle of utility is the maximization of pleasure and the reduction of pain. Mill regards happiness as the greatest good in life and all actions should be performed as long as they have the tendency to produce pleasure. Mill also introduces the Harm Principle. The Harm Principle is used to determine whether coercion is justifiable based on the impact of individual

IV. Thesis/Preview: Today I will be talking to you guys about 2 different problems pertaining to assisted suicide and why it is necessary. First, I will speak on how people suffer a lot, and how value of life is diminished. Following that I will conclude my speech by providing a solution to a problem.

IV. Some would say that there are religious issues with suicide, but according to “Clarifying Christianity” the Bible speaks in Exodus (20) verse 1-17 that we should not murder. That is often taken out of context and one cannot simply murder their own self.

“Serious violations of our duty towards ourselves produce an aversion accompanied either by horror or by disgust; suicide is of the horrible, Crimina Carnis of the disgusting” (Kant, 300). In the philosophical argument- pertaining to suicide- entitled “Suicide and Duty” by Immanuel Kant, Kant defines and argues the immorality of suicide. Labelling suicide a kind of ‘Crimina Carnis” (300)- ‘Crimina’ “of/pertaining to a crime” (Latin Dict.) and ‘Carnis’ which is related to the flesh, Kant avows that every living thing- even an injured tree in nature- seeks some sort of preservation (300); thus deeming suicide immoral.

John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant are famous philosophers who have studied the aspects of dying, and how humans should pursue their lives. Mills supported Utilitarianism perspective, where “the greatest happiness,” is the key to life. Mills was in favor of active euthanasia, if the individual believes that ending their lives will lead to personal happiness. Mills believed in classes of pleasure: high which is an individual's intellect, and lower which is

There have been many debates over time of if suicide is murder, but what about Assisted Suicide? Assisted suicide is when a person helps another person end their life. Helping with the death of someone who wanted to die. Act Utilitarianism sets basis of right or wrong based on if the action causes more pleasure or pain overall. Every person is accounted as equal. This means if an action brings pleasure to one person but harms two people. The action would be deemed as bad because it brings about more pain. This analysis will attempt to answer the lingering questions about Assisted Suicide by using the theory of Act Utilitarianism.

A vast majority of the opposing force is against legalization of physician assisted suicide for “moral” or religious reasons. It is also commonly argued that participating in assisted suicide is incompatible with the physician’s duty as a healer, or that it is unnecessary to legalize it because suicide is already a leading cause of death in the United States. John Pearson, in his article “Assisted Suicide is Unnecessary”, states that “Assisted suicide invites compromise among caregivers or family members who might have economic or otherwise selfish interests in hastening another’s death…” He goes on to mention that it is unlikely that people are capable of making such a decision in the midst of crisis or severe pain.

Utilitarianism attempts to consider the interests of others. However, when focusing on happiness, we fail to consider aspects such as rights and justice (EMP 115). When taking into consideration someone who is wanting to perform a deliberate suicide, overall happiness should not be the only issue to consider. This does not seem plausible since, if happiness is the only factor, anyone could justify any case of Euthanasia on grounds that they were unhappy and the world would be a better place without them. Doctors would be able to justify assisted suicide, which could quickly lead down a slippery slope where anyone who wanted to end their life would be able to do so at any time. Utilitarianism considers the feelings of others, correlating with the minimum concept of morality, which states that we take all individuals involved, into account. However, this theory considers everyone’s happiness equally important, which would take away, the intimacy and bonding from those we have close relationships with, as their happiness is no more important than the stranger walking down the street (EMP 116). Utilitarianism poses a strong theory, however it fails to address moral issues based on reason, as their only consideration for moral issues is the overall happiness achieved.

 Thesis: While Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem, I believe That Suicide is wrong.

Can suicide be justified as morally correct? This is one of the many questions Immanuel Kant answers in, “The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals”. Kant discusses many questions with arguable answers, which explains why he is one of the most controversial philosophers still today. Throughout Kant’s work, multiple ideas are considered, but the Categorical Imperative is one of the most prevalent. Though this concept is extremely dense, the Categorical Imperative is the law of freedom that grounds pure ethics of the metaphysics of ethics. Categorical imperatives are the basis of morality because they provoke pure reasons for every human beings actions. By the end of his work, one will understand Kant’s beliefs on morality, but to explain

The idea of universalizability strongly suits this case. To universalize the patient’s 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 patient’s 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 beast…” 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 don’t feel anything anymore. Another angle on this case looks at the patient using the

Unlike Utilitarianism however, Kantianism states that ethics is a purely a priori discipline, thus, independent of experience, and that ethical rules can only be found through pure reason. Also contrary to Utilitarianism, Kantianism asserts that the moral worth of an action should be judged on its motive and the action itself, and not on its consequences. Based on these ideas, Kantianism propose that an action is good only if it performed out a 'good will '; which is the only thing that is good, in and of itself. To act out of a 'good will ', one must act in accordance with a categorical imperative. According to Kant there is only one categorical imperative, which is to "act only on that maxim in which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (Kant, 528); and can also be formulated as "act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as means, but always at the same time as an end" (Kant, 532). Essentially, the categorical imperative states that your actions must not result in a practical contradiction, which can be determined by conceptualizing all other people performing the same act. To illustrate, if I were

The argument by those who are against using the term suicide believe that in contrast to those patients with impaired judgment, patients who are terminally ill and request medication under the act possess the ability to make a reasonable, autonomous decision to terminate their lives (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). Therefore a person’s mental capacity or judgment has not been affected and they are deemed suitable to make this decision (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). Proving that a person is capable of making this decision on their own without any outside help is most critical part of this whole entire process (Chin, Hedberg, Higginson, & Fleming, 1999). .

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.