Kant's Nourishment Of The Body

Legalization would bring honesty, clarity and transparency to an existing practice. Meier et.al (1998) in his national survey of physician assisted suicide and euthanasia in the US; found that even when PAS is not legalized, there have been requests to hasten death in some situations.

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

Throughout Kant's text, there is a long-winded approximation of maxims being the only way a human can obtain a good will. Kant exclaims how he would never lie for unconditional reasons to maintain his own pure mortality. With no decisive justification on what would happen if multiple maxims clashed, a person could unfairly be accused of being impure. Upon a horrific case where one was required to lie or else they were to be forced to commit suicide, how would one who wishes to follow the categorical imperative's go about the situation? This goes against both of Kant's maxim he exclaimed. Would Kant deem an involuntary suicide as murder? If so therefor Kant would propose the person to tell the truth and kill themselves because it would be truly moral. “Actions that are truly moral must be in for their own sake, because they are right and not for some ulterior purpose” (Holmes, 1974). Kant fails to develop a system where actions are recognized as “sufficient reason for action” (1974). In a situation where one of his maxim-based laws were to be broken, a human's morality should not be questioned because (in Kant's eyes) they consider their life as conditional. There are various holes within the theory of categorical imperatives and present an unfair view of one's morality and good

When we are presented with a situation and we want to decide whether an act we are about to perform is right or wrong Kant would suggest to look at the maxims of the act itself and not just the amount of misery or happiness the act is most likely to produce. “We just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as mere means, and, if possible that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 1985). Kant would want to help these men and women seek help for their drug addiction. Kant would treat

In relation to suicide, Kant argues that instead of focusing on the aspect of a human being sacrificing their

In the study of philosophy, it is evident that there are notions that agree and disagree with each other. When we narrow down philosophical time periods, it is even more interesting to see how ideas conflict in such a short period of time. As we observe the period between Georg Hegel and Friedrich Nietzsche, we are approached with an array of beliefs as religious philosophy is combined with non-religious philosophy. The undeniable aspect is that each concept can be adequately compared. In studying Georg Hegel, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche, it is evident that each takes a supreme stance on morality. Therefore, I propose the question, “Is it morally permissible to commit suicide”? By analyzing each philosophical approach to this question, each philosopher’s notion on the concept will be revealed.

Thanks to modern developments in medical technology, people in advanced countries today live longer and stay healthy until they are relatively older. The technology, however, also allows some people to hasten their death and make it relatively pain-free. As a result, many patients suffering from unbearable pain of certain incurable illnesses from time to time ask their physicians to help them commit suicide. Any physician who is asked to do this is under an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, the physician is asked to help relieve one from pain and suffering. On the other hand, by helping a patient commit suicide the physician is assisting someone to commit murder even if it is the case of self-murder. This ethical case known as Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a controversial topic in the United States and elsewhere. Since it is an ethical issue, one way of resolving the dilemma is to evaluate the morality of PAS from the perspective of classical and other ethical theories. Among these are utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, relativism, emotivism, and ethical egoism. With the exception of deontology, any of these theories can be used to justify PAS easily. Deontology is the only view that places strong moral limitations on the application of PAS. Deontology's most prominent proponent Immanuel Kant strongly opposed suicide. However, the core principles of deontology may justify physician-assisted suicide

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

Deontology is the ethical view that some actions are morally forbidden or permitted regardless of consequences. One of the most influential deontological philosophers in history is Immanuel Kant who developed the idea of the Categorical Imperative. Kant believed that the only thing of intrinsic moral worth is a good will. Kant says in his work Morality and Rationality “The good will is not good because of what it affects or accomplishes or because of it’s adequacy to achieve some proposed end; it is good only because of it’s willing, i.e., it is good of itself”. A maxim is the generalized rule that characterizes the motives for a person’s actions. For Kant, a will that is good is one that is acting by

The topic of whether or not suicide is lawful is very popular among both ancient and modern philosophers. Two of the most notable minds to opposing the issue include St. Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant. Both men come from different worlds separated by the centuries. Even though they both oppose lawful suicide; they approach the topic in differing ways. I will analyze both of their arguments, compare the similarities and differences, as well as provide my own though which I find to be most agreeable.

I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.

Once the consequentialist discussed his concerns and philosophy about the thought provoking matter, the deontologist stands from the bench, pulls out his wallet, and shares a prized picture of Immanuel Kant. While the consequentialist and virtue ethicist look over the photo, the deontologist begins with, “(I)f I were Immanuel Kant, here is what I would have to say about the topic of euthanasia”, “suicide and asking for euthanasia do not show respect for our own rationality; they do not treat it as an end in itself” (Lacewing, n.d., p.3). The deontologist goes on to communicate about his philosophy, we all have a perfect duty to not kill, not deceive, and keep promises. These are the responsibility of deontology. Therefore, we all must stay

“There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in this world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will.” (Kant, pg.7 393). No other thing that may appear good can be unqualifiedly good, as even “Talents of the mind…Gifts of power…[Other] qualities…Have no intrinsic unconditional worth, but they always presuppose, rather, a good will, which restricts the high esteem in which they are otherwise rightly held.” (Kant, pg.7 393-394). So Immanuel Kant introduces the public to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, which results not in simply a grounding work, but one that is utterly groundbreaking. This opener, wholly devoted to the establishment of the importance of will and intention, notes the guiding characteristics of a good will. As enumerated previously, Kant recognizes the plausible potential positivity of plenty concepts, but remains of the mind that none of these are good in themselves without the efforts of a good will to guide and restrict them in a manner that perpetuates their positivity.

The synopsis is whether the killing of an innocent is justified to save one’s own life in dire conditions, in this case from starvation. Which goes against Kant’s categorical moral reasoning philosophy and is unlawful. The defence argued that they acted out of ‘necessity’. Should the killing of Parker and the act of cannibalism be defined as a murder or as an act of necessity once the circumstance is taken into consideration? Is it better that one should die so that three could live based on Bentham’s utilitarian philosophy?

Kant believed that there are different concepts and intuitions in which intuitions are put under concepts. Kant refers these intuitions into what he calls the three-fold synthesis. Kant describes the three fold synthesis as “the capacities in the understanding to compare, connect, and unify the fragmentary manifold items in intuition” (A97). To put it in different terms, the three fold synthesis describes the necessary components for intuition of what is happening in the outside world. It allows us to Kant believed that the three fold synthesis is divided into three different types of synthesis. According to Kant, it is required that all of the synthesis work in unison in order for experience to happen. Experience is what makes possible the synthesis of apprehension, in return makes the possibility of the synthesis of reproduction, which creates the possibility of the synthesis of recondition. Therefore, Kant argues, the synthesis of recondition is contingent on experience. Kant also stated that for each of the three fold synthesis, there are both empirical and pure levels. In other words, each of the three fold synthesis have two ways of being interpreted in the mind, one based on our intellects because it is gathered through experience, and another based upon the fact that the manifold works in unison with the others and are dependent on each other for experience to happen.