theguilt engine
04/12/07, 08:53 PM
Here is my article on it. If you want a good read, check it. Let me know what you you think. Any criticism or ideas would greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Deep interpretation of Kant and his Kantian ethics may help one notice how Kant may actually provide an argument for and against the moral permissibility of suicide. At first glance, it may seem that suicide is nowhere near morally permissible because it is a inclusive cleaning out of the continuation of the self-existent end, and we know that this shows one’s indifference to the unbounded value of their own being. Nevertheless, Kant should (and does) allow certain reasonable exceptions in perfect duties, like committing suicide in order to save one’s country. Additionally, Kant applied his categorical imperative to the issue and moral permissibility of suicide in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals .
Kant points out in his article In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals that a man must focus on the complete maxim of his action. A maxim is a principle or rule of conduct in a moral or ethical situation. A person who commits suicide acts on the root of the maxim and therefore "shorten one's own life from self-love when future bad more than good". But then, the principle of self-love, whose end is to preserve one's life, becomes the leap for one's death. However, should suicide be permissible based upon the maxim? Moreover, Kant makes the argument that the maxim to shorten my life is decided if the continuation of a person's "self love" continued duration "threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction" (Kant). However, Kant continues on by asking the question as whether this principle founded on "self-love" can truly become a universal law of nature.
Now, it should be stated that Kant is not simply pointing out to do something only if a person would agree upon everyone doing that particular action as well. Instead, he says to act only on a maxim if you could except and really want everyone act on that maxim (making it a universal law of nature). When focusing on the idea of a maxim, Kant also includes a principle that incorporates the agent's purpose (or particular reason) for acting the way he or she does. Additionally, whenever a person acts intentionally, they do so because of various attributes of the situation at hand that constitutes their reason for acting that particular way.
A point that comes up in the idea of suicide and self-termination by Kant is the thought of assisted suicide, or even euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice or idea of killing a person in a painless way. However, assisted suicide, unlike euthanasia, does not involve the ending of life by a physician, as it is the dying person himself or herself who takes the steps to end his or her life. This idea of assisted suicide (and euthanasia) is an extremely important idea that is present in the movie titled The Sea Inside, which involved a quadriplegic who wants to die and no long live in an undignified life.
In J. David Velleman’s article A Right of Self-Termination , one of his complaints about many arguments in favor of assisted suicide is that they simply fail to treat human life. He goes on to state “we cannot justify someone’s death on the grounds that it’s good for him,” because it denies more values that person has (615). The person who commits suicide destroys his life by his free will, which itself (a value) is destroyed in the process. But to use free will so as to bring about it’s own destruction is unmorally and is not permissible. Moreover, this is because it would seem as if his values and decisions would good for nothing, which should not be the case. In Velleman’s article, he makes significant points towards a Kantian argument for the idea of suicide.
First, I would like to point out that a person is defined as a being with a certain kind of nature—mostly a rational nature. It’s important to point this out now, as it applies here more than anywhere else in the paper. Velleman states that dignity is a self-existing value, which should be respected by not necessarily maximized. However, respecting a person’s dignity does not necessarily require keeping that person in existence. Therefore, it is simple to note that dignity in itself is priceless. When Velleman talks about “dying with dignity” (616) in A Right of Self-Termination, he is talking about living with dignity and preventing a selfish, undignified life.
In addition, this thought of high respect involves not only the protection of what it possesses, but also the destruction of what is losing it. Velleman states that Kantian ethics allows suicide to be permissible if done for reasons other than self-interest. Particularly, it is noted that it is permissible for the sake of one's own dignity. However, this is a bit of a contradiction because it seems as if it is an instance of sacrificing the person (or end) for a person's dignity (or mere means.) I think that dignity and interests both should be valued for the sake of the person, which might have something to do with the technical Kantian use of "dignity."
The Sea Inside is a Spanish movie about the true, real-life story of Ramon Sampedro, who is a Spaniard that fought a hard and very personal 30-year campaign in favor of euthanasia and his own right to die peacefully. I think there are parts of Kantian ethics in this movie that both agree and disagree with the moral permissibility of suicide. Accordingly, there are arguments in support and against the moral permissibility of suicide throughout the movie that can relate back to Kantian ethics. Thus, I think makes it hard to decide whether or not Ramon Sampedro and anyone assisting him is morally justified to end his life.
To begin, I do believe that it is necessary to point out that Ramon Sampedro was a quadriplegic, which is complete paralysis of the body from the neck down. This made his arms, legs, and the rest of body virtually useless. However, his heart still beats and his brain still functions like any normal human being. Therefore, this brings the idea of dignity back into this discussion. If Ramon Sampedro is alive, but living an undignified life, then he should be able to decide for himself what is permissible. To other's, Ramon was not be able to use his arms or his legs, but the way he used his mind to help others was amazing. Ramon was a man with great humanity without pointing himself out politically, but instead fostering life as a precious right and not an obligation, underlining the individual's right to choose.
However, I do think that assisted suicide is underlined in Kantian ethics as being unethical and in no way permissible. In this movie, this is a major subject because of the well-morale peoples that suddenly enter Ramon's life in their longing to help him put an end to his anguish. There's Julia, the lawyer who is herself handicapped and suffers from a rare disease that eventually will kill her. But of course, there is a woman named Rosa who becomes infatuated with Ramon despite his disease. Additionally, she is the one that helps him be finally happy before he kills himself with cyanide. I think that Kant agrees with the fact that it is quite possibly but not certainly permissible for Ramon to take his own undignified life. However, for someone else to help take his life would be undignified, which is not morally permissible. In conclusion, Human nature has an intrinsic value which is negated by suicide, which involves treating oneself as if one were a thing.
Deep interpretation of Kant and his Kantian ethics may help one notice how Kant may actually provide an argument for and against the moral permissibility of suicide. At first glance, it may seem that suicide is nowhere near morally permissible because it is a inclusive cleaning out of the continuation of the self-existent end, and we know that this shows one’s indifference to the unbounded value of their own being. Nevertheless, Kant should (and does) allow certain reasonable exceptions in perfect duties, like committing suicide in order to save one’s country. Additionally, Kant applied his categorical imperative to the issue and moral permissibility of suicide in Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals .
Kant points out in his article In Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals that a man must focus on the complete maxim of his action. A maxim is a principle or rule of conduct in a moral or ethical situation. A person who commits suicide acts on the root of the maxim and therefore "shorten one's own life from self-love when future bad more than good". But then, the principle of self-love, whose end is to preserve one's life, becomes the leap for one's death. However, should suicide be permissible based upon the maxim? Moreover, Kant makes the argument that the maxim to shorten my life is decided if the continuation of a person's "self love" continued duration "threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction" (Kant). However, Kant continues on by asking the question as whether this principle founded on "self-love" can truly become a universal law of nature.
Now, it should be stated that Kant is not simply pointing out to do something only if a person would agree upon everyone doing that particular action as well. Instead, he says to act only on a maxim if you could except and really want everyone act on that maxim (making it a universal law of nature). When focusing on the idea of a maxim, Kant also includes a principle that incorporates the agent's purpose (or particular reason) for acting the way he or she does. Additionally, whenever a person acts intentionally, they do so because of various attributes of the situation at hand that constitutes their reason for acting that particular way.
A point that comes up in the idea of suicide and self-termination by Kant is the thought of assisted suicide, or even euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice or idea of killing a person in a painless way. However, assisted suicide, unlike euthanasia, does not involve the ending of life by a physician, as it is the dying person himself or herself who takes the steps to end his or her life. This idea of assisted suicide (and euthanasia) is an extremely important idea that is present in the movie titled The Sea Inside, which involved a quadriplegic who wants to die and no long live in an undignified life.
In J. David Velleman’s article A Right of Self-Termination , one of his complaints about many arguments in favor of assisted suicide is that they simply fail to treat human life. He goes on to state “we cannot justify someone’s death on the grounds that it’s good for him,” because it denies more values that person has (615). The person who commits suicide destroys his life by his free will, which itself (a value) is destroyed in the process. But to use free will so as to bring about it’s own destruction is unmorally and is not permissible. Moreover, this is because it would seem as if his values and decisions would good for nothing, which should not be the case. In Velleman’s article, he makes significant points towards a Kantian argument for the idea of suicide.
First, I would like to point out that a person is defined as a being with a certain kind of nature—mostly a rational nature. It’s important to point this out now, as it applies here more than anywhere else in the paper. Velleman states that dignity is a self-existing value, which should be respected by not necessarily maximized. However, respecting a person’s dignity does not necessarily require keeping that person in existence. Therefore, it is simple to note that dignity in itself is priceless. When Velleman talks about “dying with dignity” (616) in A Right of Self-Termination, he is talking about living with dignity and preventing a selfish, undignified life.
In addition, this thought of high respect involves not only the protection of what it possesses, but also the destruction of what is losing it. Velleman states that Kantian ethics allows suicide to be permissible if done for reasons other than self-interest. Particularly, it is noted that it is permissible for the sake of one's own dignity. However, this is a bit of a contradiction because it seems as if it is an instance of sacrificing the person (or end) for a person's dignity (or mere means.) I think that dignity and interests both should be valued for the sake of the person, which might have something to do with the technical Kantian use of "dignity."
The Sea Inside is a Spanish movie about the true, real-life story of Ramon Sampedro, who is a Spaniard that fought a hard and very personal 30-year campaign in favor of euthanasia and his own right to die peacefully. I think there are parts of Kantian ethics in this movie that both agree and disagree with the moral permissibility of suicide. Accordingly, there are arguments in support and against the moral permissibility of suicide throughout the movie that can relate back to Kantian ethics. Thus, I think makes it hard to decide whether or not Ramon Sampedro and anyone assisting him is morally justified to end his life.
To begin, I do believe that it is necessary to point out that Ramon Sampedro was a quadriplegic, which is complete paralysis of the body from the neck down. This made his arms, legs, and the rest of body virtually useless. However, his heart still beats and his brain still functions like any normal human being. Therefore, this brings the idea of dignity back into this discussion. If Ramon Sampedro is alive, but living an undignified life, then he should be able to decide for himself what is permissible. To other's, Ramon was not be able to use his arms or his legs, but the way he used his mind to help others was amazing. Ramon was a man with great humanity without pointing himself out politically, but instead fostering life as a precious right and not an obligation, underlining the individual's right to choose.
However, I do think that assisted suicide is underlined in Kantian ethics as being unethical and in no way permissible. In this movie, this is a major subject because of the well-morale peoples that suddenly enter Ramon's life in their longing to help him put an end to his anguish. There's Julia, the lawyer who is herself handicapped and suffers from a rare disease that eventually will kill her. But of course, there is a woman named Rosa who becomes infatuated with Ramon despite his disease. Additionally, she is the one that helps him be finally happy before he kills himself with cyanide. I think that Kant agrees with the fact that it is quite possibly but not certainly permissible for Ramon to take his own undignified life. However, for someone else to help take his life would be undignified, which is not morally permissible. In conclusion, Human nature has an intrinsic value which is negated by suicide, which involves treating oneself as if one were a thing.