Kant on Suicide Essay

4. Explain and critically assess Kants demarcation that one has a put to work to preserve ones testify biography sentence. As rational beings Kant believes we have a bland craft of self-preservation to not wilfully take our own lives. Kant talks in depth active handicraft and believes we should act out of respect for the virtuous law. The pull up stakes is the still inherent good, as we argon only motivated by barter and nothing else. We should act only out of demands of the law, not from inclination, desires or to acquire a particular goal. Duty dictates we should never act or go away something if we do not want it to become a universal law.Kant was against all form of suicide. He fast(a)ly believed that in taking a manners you treat humanity classically as a means to an close. Kant wouldnt be interested in the throe or pain reach to still out a soulfulness who was terminally ill and wanted to end their life, nor would he take into consideration the family/ friends suffering. In this essay I will be arguing that if we follow the categorical imperative it is immoral to sacrifice a life because it involves treating humanity up uprightly as a means to an end.I will examine tail end Hardwigs counter argument that we should end our own lives if more pain and suffering is cause by pro foresighteding it/living it even if we argon no longer a rational being. We must fancy that Kant is saying if I make a maxium e. g. if I am in unbearable suffering, I should take my own life it must fulfill the universal law and be applied to everyone. Kant believes we ought to preserve our own lives because it is our moral art (it is necessary and universal). jakes Hardwig however, would argue we similarly have the proficient to end our lives.Kant would dismiss this because ultimately humans are the bearers of rational life (e. g. it is too sacred to sacrifice). Suicide wanders Kants Categorical Imperative on the following grounds It seeks to shorte n a life that promises more troubles than please, this would be killing yourself out of self-love when in fact the real rate would be to live a life worth living, with more pleasure than difficulties. Kant isnt claiming that its impossible for everyone to commit suicide or for everyone to will it (and therefore it becoming a universal law).He believes it would not experience as nature hence the maxim hind endnot obtain as a law of nature. (Immanuel Kant, The Groundwork of the methaphysics of morals, Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann, Cambridge University 2012, p45 emphasis added). Here Kant seems to be suggesting that suicide isnt a natural grade of life that it goes against our goal and that its a contradiction to end your life when your goal would be to have an enjoyable life. The idea that the destruction of life is incompatible with returns suggests that nature couldnt/wouldnt allow self-love to be used in a way that is contrary to its purpose.There is surely an patently c ontradiction here in ending ones life to prevent suffering, one is using ones life mere means to an end, which automatically fails the categorical imperative. Take the case of Maria Von Herbert- she is clear appealing to Kant, if under any circumstances suicide is morally pleasurable? He isnt as blatant with her as in his writings, just now let us not forget, Kant doesnt see woman as rational beings. I tote up with Rae Langton that Kant totally bypasses the reason Herbert is writing to him.He doesnt confront her on suicide but instead reduces her line to a moral dilemma (regrets lying or parting the equity ), which as an intelligent woman whom has read all his writings she could work out for herself. Could this have made Kant certain that she did lie and therefore fail the kingdom of ends? Perhaps Kant is being hypocritical he doesnt tell Maria the whole truth of suicide merely reducing her to a thing. He tells Maria she should be ashamed for not rotund the truth to her form er friend but, doesnt this apply for himself too?Is he just avoiding the truth (states this is just as bad a lying) by not confronting her about suicide? Most standardisedly he wants her to be autonomous and get to the reason herself. Hardwig disagrees with Kant. Take a different slur Is a terminally ill person-needing 24/7 care, who is entirely financially reliant- only using their family as a means to an end? You can see this as a two way street situation. Kant doesnt look to consequences of an challenge it wouldnt matter to his philosophy that the ill persons family suffers because they are preserving their life.But is there a flaw? (1) I ought to do my duty as long as I am alive and (2) It is my duty to go on living as long as possible. Kant strongly believes that you cant affirm life by taking your own. There is only one exception. Kant claims those who die in difference of opinion are victims of fate (not simply suicide because they chose to fight). He holds the view that it is erupt to die in battle than to die of a wound in hospital. Kant believes its noble to risk our lives for others- nobody uses us as mere means and we follow our own maxium.We are no longer strained into serving for our country or deceived into joining (if this did happen it would fail the CI because we wouldnt be treated as rational beings and would be used as mere means and not as ends in ourselves). John Hardwig strongly believes that life should be treated no differently from death. We are free to live in the way we want, so why arent we free to die in the way we want (when and how)? He too switches the question but Kant would simply say we have a duty to live. Hardwig has also argued that medical advances eliminate the threats of many terminal illnesses.He so concludes, if our continued existence creates signi? cant hardship for our loved ones, we have a duty to die. By continuing a live of suffering the core that this person imposes on others is often colossal. One m ay have the duty to die in order to relieve them of these burdens. This argument seems to be base on fairness. Kant would refute this suffering is a tool of reasoning and it ensures the schooling of mankind. Kant strongly believes that we should preserve our own lives. The argument though strong is flawed.1- exclusively duties are absolute- Kant doesnt advise us on how to resolve distant duty (for example help others vs. never kill). 2- He discounts moral emotions like compassion, sympathy, desire and remorse as appropriate and ethical motives for action. 3- Kant completely ignores the consequences of an action and is purposefully blind to following circumstances. He states that human life is worthy because humans are the bearers of rational life. We have the great capacity to think, organize, stick out etc. and Kant holds this as being valuable.Therefore we should not sacrifice this for anything (as previously discussed autonomous creatures should not be treated merely as a means or for the happiness of another). There are also great issues with Hardwigs counter argument if we agree that we have the duty to die who has the duty to die? When do they have they duty to die? Although this argument is strong is some areas (greater burden), it is greatly flawed. It would be extremely difficult to universalize a maxium for everyone to follow so they could decide if at that moment they had the duty to die.A problem would also occur if the family disagreed with the ill persons decision, which could cause great problems within society (though Kant would not look to consequences but they are greatly important to Hardwigs argument). I believe and agree with Kant- that if we follow the categorical imperative it is immoral to sacrifice anyone at all (including yourself) because it involves treating the humanity in that person as merely a means to an end. I also accept and agree with his point that it seems to go against our purpose and is an unnatural path for us to take a life.I find it interesting that Kant believes suffering is a tool of development and therefore essential to us. Though John Hardwigs argument is partly convincing, if we were all given the choice of when we should die, would we find the right time? This would be very hard to govern, as people would of lineage take advantage of this right. Ive found it hard to find a counter argument to Kants stance -without suffering there wouldnt be cures and perhaps less happiness. Therefore I have to agree with Kant that it only allows us to grow and develop. Thus we do have the duty to preserve our own lives even if it is riddled with suffering.