Euthanasia and Kants Morality - Essay Example

Tracy A. Corwin PHI 240.006 Brent Miller April 8, 2007 Euthanasia and Kant's Morality Euthanasia, or mercy killing for the most number of people will never pose a dilemma in a real situation. And yet, universally the thought of assisting someone to die, one who is suffering and has no more chances to live in the foreseeable future, is an abhorrence in spite of the many arguments that in certain cases euthanasia should be allowed. Legally, assisted suicide has been justified on certain grounds, for example in countries such as the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and in the State of Oregon in the United States (McKean 1). This does not however change the fact that for most people the issue of euthanasia is fundamentally not about giving mercy. It is still the "killing" part that raises the hackles for most people. Mercy (or compassion) and killing (with an intent to kill, it can still be considered murder) are still clearly contradictory, i.e., posed in the very simplistic, yet lucid question: how could you possibly help someone you love or care about kill himself How could mercy or love ever be allied with the destruction of life, no matter how little remains of it The morality of any act according to Kant's well-known adage of the categorical imperative only suffices if it can be raised as a universal law (Kant, Groundwork of The Metaphysics of Morals). To assist someone who wants to die will almost never impel that unconditional sense of rightness, but instead the situation will almost always look at the conditionality of how a particular situation may be acted upon. This action is the opposite of what can be found in the morality of the categorical imperative. A thing according to Kantian morality is right because it is independent of any external cause. In the case of euthanasia, the external cause takes the forms of the mercy or a sense of "duty" to let a person die in dignity, or respect the wishes of someone who wants to end his life. The possibility of euthanasia usually occurs in the context of a unique relationship between a patient or a person who is suffering from a terrible or terminal illness and the caregiver, usually a family member or a doctor. Should a suffering human being whose chances of depression may be high due to a seemingly hopeless situation be trusted in deciding that life is better ended Is he or she an "autonomous" person in this case On the other hand, can a caregiver or a doctor with a close relationship with a terminally ill and suffering patient be looked at as merely performing a duty to respect the decision to die of someone he or she cares about Is it duty or is it something else The concept of autonomy or the sense of freedom and the principle of duty in Kant's theory of morality provide analytical tools to examine whether euthanasia is morally defensible. Autonomy and dignity, which are based upon the premise that a human being is free by way of reason to decide on what is wrong or right, have been used to justify euthanasia. Conversely, this line of reasoning suggests that the autonomy or dignity of a patient who expresses that life-prolonging treatments or care violate his or her sense of dignity as a human being should be respected. According to Kant, men are moral beings because by virtue of being free and capable of reason. However, he qualifies the term freedom, and explains further that there is a "negative" and "positive" sense of freedom. He wrote, "The sole principle of morality consists in the independence on all matter of the law (namely, a desired object), and in the determination of the elective will by the mere universal legislative form of which its maxim must be capable. This independence is freedom in the negative sense, and this self-legislation of the pure, and therefore practical reason is freedom in the positive sense" (Kant, Critique of Practical Reason, Book 1, chap.1, par 85). On both counts, whether in the negative or positive sense, the patient who is supposedly the originator of a decision that would end his life cannot be considered as free as others, especially to whom his or her life depends. How can a patient who is dependent on the care of his relatives or family and other institutional caregivers be considered autonomous, and therefore, wholly free to decide on what is morally right concerning his life Many considerations that weigh on those who are not sick are on the minds of people who are suffering from terminal illness. The consideration that he or she might be a burden, financially and emotionally to his family or the pressure that since most people are not bedridden or dying like him, he or she is no longer a human being in the desirable sense of the word. So, a patient who is depressed from these considerations will naturally "desire" to end to his life. Such a person might act more in fear that he or she will lose that sense of autonomy or freedom that makes human beings respect one another (Velleman, 13). The depressed patient, who is suffering not only physically, but more so psychologically, is much more like a child whom society protects. A child at least under fourteen years old is not considered as responsible, and therefore, not as free as the rest of the society above that age and is considered less innocent in committing acts, whether he or she desired it or not. The absence of autonomy, and therefore, the basis of freedom cannot result in the universality of a certain act, in this case euthanasia. That freedom has been justified by those who are in favor of mercy killing might take note of what Kant has written as a form of warning: "The concept of freedom is the stone of stumbling for all empiricists, but at the same time the key to the loftiest practical principles for critical moralists, who perceive by its means that they must necessarily proceed by a rational method (Kant, The Critique of Practical Reason, par 12). Also, with the focus on autonomy or the supposed dignity accorded to the patient, the right to die has been placed in the same plane as the right to live without looking at the difference. The former does not bring with it the coincidental results that the latter does. Autonomy is ended after the means to die has been acted upon, while in the latter, autonomy and dignity is even enlarged. A doctor or caregiver who gives in to the request of a patient to die automatically snuffs out life the moment euthanasia is executed, and with it, autonomy or dignity forever. On the other hand, it might be a case of hanging on to hope even when the situation seems hopeless when life is preserved at all costs. Yet, when more efforts are focused towards better palliative care, the autonomy and the dignity of the patient have better chances to improved, and at the same time, life is preserved. Between the suffering patient who requests that he be allowed to die and the caregiver or the doctor who is just as torn between "duty" to respect the wishes of his charge/patient and the sense of being remiss as well to preserve life at all costs, it is in the caregiver and the doctor on to whom he ponderous weight of the possibility of executing an act of mercy killing bears down. Whether it is passive or active euthanasia makes no difference. The intent to execute the wishes of a patient who wants to die is present. Indeed, it is difficult place to be in. However, using the Kantian yardstick, which puts a premium of duty, instead of private happiness or satisfaction, the situation can be clarified if it is moral or immoral to be a willing party to a suicide. In the Foundations of Metaphysics, Kant wrote on the principle of duty as a feature of a moral act and the difference between a hypothetical and a categorical imperative (Section 1). According to Kant, "a good will is not good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness of some proposed end, but simply by virtue of the volition." Certainly, most caregivers or doctors who choose to assist someone end his life are not simply acting on their own volition. Many considerations are on the table, from genuinely compassionate feelings to help to rationalizations that the "patient" is going to die anyway and what's the use Then if patient is allowed to die, so much the better for everyone emotionally and financially if it happens sooner than later So the question of whether to let someone die, or even assist in his suicide is really reduced to a set of reasons that will effect, or satisfy a scruple of the one who is being asked to perform euthanasia. This is not duty, it is merely satisfying an inclination with an eye to what the act could effect or perform as result, and, therefore, not moral. Compare this inclination with a good will that elects to have someone who is suffering live while life lasts. A few would say that guilt or a simple scruple stops someone from performing mercy killing, but this a negligible to the almost universal belief that life is sacred and must be preserved at all cost. The proposition of Kant applies to this, that "duty is the necessity of acting from the respect for the law" (Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals, Section 1).The source and the end are both defined first and foremost by the will to act according to what is volitionally right. In Kant's distinction, therefore, between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, euthanasia, whether done for compassionate, or opportunistic reasons falls under a hypothetical imperative because the act of assisting someone to die almost always is a means to an end, which is to end a life. On the other hand, the categorical imperative is a necessity of an action without being concomitant to another end. The only condition that should be met is that the act in itself is good or moral as perceived by the will or the mind. Based on the concept of autonomy or freedom of the will, euthanasia is not morally right as the dependence of the patient who is constrained for some reasons and cannot act independently is the norm. The patient feels under an obligation, most especially to the people or parties who care for him, and this, therefore, violates the autonomy principle for which the morality of the will should proceed. Similarly, on the part of the person being asked to assist in the suicide of the patient it is inclination towards a desired result that predominates, not from duty which is free from any conditionality in the sense of Kantian morality. Euthanasia, due to many constraining factors that affect the patient and the caregiver, therefore, cannot satisfy Kant's categorical imperative for morality. Because the suffering person and his caregiver are in a unique situation, primarily due to constraints not faced by most people, the moral grounds for euthanasia can never be applied universally or be raised into a Kantian universal ought. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel. "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals." Ethics: History, Theory and Contemporary Issues. Ed. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie. New York: Oxford UP 2006. 270-308. - - - Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. 1785. Trans. by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. EBook # 5682. Edition: 10. Prepared by Matthew Stapleton. Release Date: May 2004. Date last updated 05 Nov. 2005. 1 Apr. 2007 . - - - The Critique of Practical Reason. 1788. Trans. by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. EBook # 5683. Edition: 10. Prepared by Matthew Stapleton. Release Date: May 2004. 1 Apr. 2007 . - - - The Metaphysical Elements of Ethics. 1780. Trans.by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. Ebook #5682. Edition: 10. Prepared by Matthew Stapleton. Release Date: May 2004. 31 Mar 2007 . McKean, David. "Euthanasia: Ethical, Empirical and Legal Issues. 2006. 1 Apr 2007 Velleman, David J. "Against the Right to Die". University of Michigan. 1 Apr 2007 . Read More