Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
Various types of euthanasia and controversies about the process
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
The issue of euthanasia is one surrounded by much controversy. Here we will look at the moral system of Immanuel Kant and John Stewart Mill, the argument for euthanasia, and how each philosopher would respond to that argument. Immanuel Kant and John Stewart Mill have different ethical views therefore they view the issue of Euthanasia differently.
Immanuel Kant holds a deontological, or duty based, ethical view. This means that for something to have moral value it must be done from duty. The basis of this view is the categorical imperative, which Kant explains is to, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (412). We must be able to universalize the act and have no contradictions in order for it to be morally permissible. Another part of this view is the principle of humanity, which states, “Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” (415). An act that uses someone as a means to an end is automatically immoral in Kant’s perspective. This ethical system that is the basis for Kant’s view on Euthanasia is very different from Mill’s.
John Stewart Mill has a much different ethical view that Kant. Mill is a Utilitarian, which in the book is described that, “It claims that the morality of an action is determined by how well it promotes ‘utility’, which is defined as the greatest good for the greatest number” (417). This ethical view measures the morality of an act by what the outcome is. If it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number it is moral. This is also referred to as the greatest happiness principle. Happiness being pleasure and the absence of pa...
... middle of paper ...
...e are forced to think of what we believe in. I tend to agree with some of both. I agree with Kant that no human being should be treated as a means to an end. On the other hand I also think it is part of our moral obligation to relieve suffering if possible. The way we do those things is up to each individual.
Works Cited
Battin, Margaret. "Battin: The Case for Euthanasia." Living Ethics: An Introduction. Ed. Michael Minch and Christine Weigel. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. 490-97. Print.
Kant, Immanuel. "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals: Immanuel Kant." Fifty Readings Plus: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. Donald C. Abel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 404-16. Print.
Mill, John Stewart. "Utilitarianism: John Stewart Mill." Fifty Readings Plus: An Introduction to Philosophy. Ed. Donald C. Abel. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 416-25. Print.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Norman Kempsmith. New York: The Humanities P, 1950.
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
O'Neill, O. (1986). A Simplified Account of Kantian Ethics. Matters of life and death (pp. 44-50). n.a.: McGraw-Hill.
Kant and Mill both try to decide whether the process of doing something is distinguished as right or wrong. They explain that right or wrong is described as moral or immoral. In the writings of Grounding for the Metaphysics of morals Kant says that you only need to “act only according to the maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 30). Kant then states that a practical principal for how far the human will is concerned is thereby a categorical imperative, that everyone then is necessarily an end, and the end in itself establishes an objective principal of the will and can aid as a practical law (36). Mill on the other hand has the outlook that the greatest happiness principle, or utilitarianism, is that happiness and pleasure are the freedom from pain (Mill, 186). With these principles we will see that Kant and Mill correspond and contradict each other in their moral theories.
Mill made a distinction between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as follows:According to the Greatest Happiness Principle … The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statement, three ideas may be identified: (1) The goodness of an act may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A "good" man is one who considers the other man's pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own.
Kant, Immanuel, and Mary J. Gregor. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print.
Those who support active euthanasia can argue that helping the ill to bring their own deaths, allowing them to determine the how and when, is not only a human act but also allows the person, who is "living to die," to maintain their dignity; this way, they will let them die in peace, rather than suffer to the end. Because if not, they think of themselves as a disgrace, to those they love. According to recent researches and surveys, many Canadians would agree to this, but my question is, have they taken a close look at the ethical debate? Those who are against active euthanasia would say not, and would argue that by participating in the practice of active euthanasia, they are "playing God," or perhaps, that they are not acting out of mercy, therefore, the act is nothing less than cold-blooded murder. Murder by the law is defined as; "The unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another." Euthanasia, in Canada, remains unlawful as of today, and the act of euthanasia is premeditated, whether for the purpose of mercy or not, euthanasia is, by definition, murder. According to Kantian perspective established by Kant the philosopher, and the Holy Bible, murder is both a sin and a crime, therefore we ought not participate in the practice of euthanasia, because it is murder, and it is the wrong thing to do.
J.S. Mill, 'What Utilitarianism Is' from Peter Y. Windt, An Introduction to Philosophy: Ideas in Conflict, St Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1982.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Neither Kant nor Mills believe that emotions should play into decisions in both of their respective theories, which is a factor that should be considered when discussing dying patients who want help to go ahead and die. It also makes it hard to decide which philosopher has addressed the ethical problems better because one theory considers strictly consequence and one only considers duty, and it is more efficient to debate on active euthanasia considering the intention of the dying patient and the consequences active euthanasia would bring. In Mill’s theory, the consequences of the person dying cannot really be known because the family could either be devastated or happy they are not suffering, whereas the doctor could experience emotional turmoil
In this essay I will define what utilitarianism is and explain the utilitarian moral theory. In order to define utilitarianism one/we should have an understanding of what Mill means by utility. Many people believe that utility could be defined as the opposite of pleasure. This popular opinion would be incorrect according to Mill. He argues that in order for this accusation to be true it would mean that humans would never experience pain. Mill says that “Utility is pleasure itself with the exemption of pain (Mill 262).
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
Many people debate whether the act of Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide is an at of killing or caring. Euthanasia occurs when a patient cannot endure the pain and suffering anymore or if they are terminally ill. If making the decision to perform Euthanasia is agreed upon it consists of directly giving the lethal medication to the patient. The philosopher, James Rachels believed Active Euthanasia under certain circumstances was morally acceptable. I agree with James Rachels for many reasons and also believe Kantian beliefs come into play when considering Euthanasia.
Since euthanasia is a divisive subject, a variety of interpretations occurs. First, people that are in favor of euthanasia agreed that it is depressing to see a terminally ill person going through excruciating pain. Also, every human being deserves a dignified and peaceful death. The West’s Encyclopedia of American law, illustrates that a person or physician that cause the death of a patient is acting with compassion and mercy (Phelps, Lehman 237). In addition, people that agree with euthanasia believe that seeing a person experiencing constant misery and pain because of heath issue should have the to die with dignity. In this society where the protection human rights is in a debate on both sides, people that are in favor with euthanasia,
If they are not capable of making such choices, then someone else must make the decision for them, if that question should arise” (Singer). The goal of utilitarianism is to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and in this case, it would be the family, friends and the person undergoing the situation. Utilitarianism would take into account the emotional trauma and dignity of one dying because it would look at how many people are happy or peaceful because of the death. The family and friends would mourn over the patient but they would also know that their family member or friend is not in pain. In Plato’s Laws, he claimed that suicide is disgraceful and its perpetrators should be buried in unmarked graves. However, Plato recognized four exceptions to this principle: (1) when one’s mind is morally corrupted and one's character can therefore not be salvaged (Laws IX 854a3–5), (2) when the self-killing is done by judicial order, as in the case of Socrates, (3) when the self-killing is compelled by extreme and unavoidable personal misfortune, and (4) when the self-killing results from shame at having participated in grossly unjust actions (Laws IX 873c-d) (Cholbi). The first principle can refer to a patient’s vegetative which is defined as one of “unconscious wakefulness”. A person in this state has lost all cerebral cortex function but retains a basic level of brain stem function (Virtue Ethics). As for Mill, he was a strong supporter of personal liberty, and in his pamphlet On Liberty, he argued that the only reason for society to interfere in a person’s life was to prevent him or her from doing harm to others (Virtue Ethics). Euthanasia is not harming others – in fact, it’s preventing one from being in pain any longer so according to