What you need to know about Suicide and Euthanasia in Kantian Ethics
Suicide, Euthanasia, and the Kantian Ethics
© 2013-present by Jensen DG. Mañebog/ MyInfoBasket.com
He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. If he destroys himself in order to escape from painful circumstances, he uses a person merely as a mean to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life. But a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as means, but must in all his actions be always considered as an end in himself.
– Immanuel Kant
In 1982, a 62-year-old man, named Barney Clark, became the first human to get a permanent artificial heart. He was given, in addition, a key that could be used to turn off his compressor, if ever he wanted to die. One of his physicians, Dr. Willem Kolff, justified the inclusion of the key by explaining that if Clark suffered and felt that life was not enjoyable or worth enduring anymore, he had the chance and right to end his life. The patient, nonetheless, never used the key. He died 15 weeks after the operation.
Suicide is still one of the leading causes of death in the general population, and the suicide rate is on the rise in groups ranging from teenagers to the elderly. This case illustrates the growing importance of ethical reflection regarding suicide and a very related topic, euthanasia.
Suicide, euthanasia, and Kantian ethics are all center of this article. A section in this lesson deals with how Immanuel Kant ethically treats suicide and euthanasia. Being a rich theory in ethics, Kantian ethics is applicable to many moral issues other than the two mentioned.
1. Suicide
Contemporary Philosophy professor J.P. Morelandexplains that an act is a suicide:
“… if and only if a person intentionally and/or directly causes his or her own death as an ultimate end in itself or as a means to another end (e.g., pain relief), through acting (e.g., taking a pill) or refraining from acting (e.g., refusing to eat) when that act is not coerced and is not done sacrificially for the lives of other persons or in obedience to God.” (Moreland, n.d.)
A definite instantiation of suicide is an elderly man, despairing of life, leaves a note behind and jumps off a bridge. In ethics, the debate on suicide usually focuses on whether or not a suicidal act as such can be morally justifiable when it is done by a rational, competent decision maker.
Pertinently,euthanasia is the termination of a very sick person’s life in order to relieve him/her of his/her suffering. The term is derived from the Greek word ‘euthanatos’ which means ‘easy death.’
Euthanasia is performed, in most cases, because the person who dies asks for it, thereby appearing to be pretty much like a form of suicide. Nonetheless, there are cases called euthanasia where a person cannot make such a request.
Typically, a person who undergoes euthanasia has an incurable condition. There are other cases, however, where certain people want their life to be ended. In cases where patients may be too ill, the decision is made by relatives, medics or, in some instances, the courts. These cases are also referred to as assisted suicide.
Suicide as an issue, especially when assuming the form of euthanasia, has been at the focus of very heated debates for many years. Debates on suicide and euthanasia are surrounded by religious, ethical, and practical considerations.
2. Kantian Ethics
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is a German thinker regarded by many as the most significant philosopher in the modern era. His major contributions to Ethics can be found in his two works: The Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals and the Critique of Practical Reason. (Read: Kantian Ethics Summary)
3. Kant on Suicide and Euthanasia
Kant uses the ‘end-in-itself’ formulation of the categorical imperative in categorically ruling out suicide and euthanasia. He contends that to take one’s own life is to use one’s own person as a tool in bringing to an end one’s suffering and grief.
In his Fundamental Principles of The Metaphysic of Morals, Kant explains, thus:
“… under the head of necessary duty to oneself: He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. If he destroys himself in order to escape from painful circumstances, he uses a person merely as a mean to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life. But a man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as means, but must in all his actions be always considered as an end in himself. I cannot, therefore, dispose in any way of a man in my own person so as to mutilate him, to damage or kill him.” (as quoted in “Immanuel Kant on Suicide,” n.d.)
In other words, suicide and euthanasia, for Kant, are abasing and degrading one’s humanity by treating himself as no more than a thing: “Man can only dispose of things; beasts are things in this sense; but man is not a thing, not a beast. If he disposes of himself, he treats his value as that of a beast. He who so behaves, who has no respect for human behavior, makes a thing of himself” (as quoted in “Kant on Suicide,” n.d.).
Kant thus condemned suicide in the most unqualified and indeed quite furious terms. In his The Metaphysics of Morals (1797), he depicts suicide as “in no circumstances permissible.” He states that the man who commits suicide “sinks lower than the beasts” and that “nothing more terrible can be imagined.” We “shrink from him in horror” and “look upon the suicide as carrion.” And if a man attempts suicide and survives, he has in effect “discarded his humanity” and we are entitled to “treat him as a beast, as a thing, and to use him for our sport as we do a horse or a dog” (as quoted in “Kant on Suicide,” n.d.).
Kant’s another argument is based on the irrefutable fact that if a person commits suicide, he can no longer perform any moral acts. “It cannot be moral,” in Kant’s words, “to root out the existence of morality in the world.” The suicide “robs himself of his person. This is contrary to the highest duty we have towards ourselves, for it annuls the conditions of all other duties” (“Kant on Suicide,” n.d.). Furthermore, Kant maintains that man is God’s property, and hence has no right to dispose of his own life either through suicide or euthanasia. (Read: Kantian Ethics: An Analysis)
4. Debate on Suicide and Euthanasia
So, can a suicidal act (including euthanasia) as such be morally justifiable when it is done by a rational, competent decision maker? Through Kantian ethics, we have seen some arguments against suicide and euthanasia. Let us discuss other arguments concerning these ethical issues.
Some declare that there are instances in which suicide can be morally justified. A liberal approach to suicide, for instance, holds that an act of suicide may be morally justifiable, even if that act does some harm to others, provided that the act does not do substantial damage to others and that it is in keeping with the individual liberty of the agent.
Even if someone has some duty to others, say his/her family members, the suicide can still be morally acceptable as long as the distress to others caused by the suicide does not outweigh the distress to the person who refrains from committing suicide. It is claimed that no person is obliged to endure extreme distress (and pain) in order to save others from a smaller amount of distress.
There are two main approaches to the morality of suicide within this liberal camp: the utilitarian approach and the autonomy approach. These two views are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
The (1) liberal utilitarian approach explains that it may be appropriate to take one’s own life to avoid catastrophic hospital expenses in a terminal illness and thus meet one’s obligation to one’s family. It is also said that a person may maximize his or her long-term welfare by bringing about death.
In other words, the approach pronounces that all things being considered, if bringing about death maximizes utility, then it would be rational and morally justifiable to commit suicide. Among the things deemed as good and sufficient reasons for suicide are excruciating, terminal illness (case typical of euthanasia); events that have made a person feel ashamed or lose his prestige and status; reduction from prosperity to poverty; the loss of a limb or of physical beauty; the loss of sexual capacity; incidents that make it seemingly impossible to achieve things considered important; loss of a loved one; disappointment in love; and the infirmities of increasing age.
If someone experiences these or other serious blows to his/her prospect for happiness, it is explained that he/she may be justified in suicide if such an act maximizes the net amount of utility compared to alternative acts. The approach even adds that in cases of morally justifiable suicide, others are morally obligated to assist in executing the decision, if the person needs help.
The (2) liberal autonomy approach states that persons should be allowed to be self-determining agents who make their own evaluations and choices when their own interests are at stake. If a person is a competent, rational decision maker, he has a right to determine his own destiny even if others believe that a course of action would be harmful to the individual.
On the other hand, the so-called conservative view holds that suicide (including euthanasia) as such is not morally justifiable. Many reasons have been offered for this view. Kantian ethics somewhat states that suicide violates one’s sanctity of life duty to respect oneself as an end and not a means.
Some hold that suicide violates a natural law principle that man’s very nature is such that he has an inclination to continue in existence and he has a moral duty to act in keeping with that nature. Suicide is deemed to be violating one’s duty to his/her community by injuring that community in some way. Religiously speaking, the act is said to violate man’s duty to God as the Giver and ultimate Owner of life.
Some argue that the basic reason suicide is immoral is that life is a gift granted by a gracious Creator. Because life is a gift, man is obligated to his Creator to live. Living is thus a duty in that man is to go on living even when he is far from figuring out why things happen as they do. This obligation expresses the rational belief that God gives purpose to life in the midst of hardships.
It is also argued that man should not commit suicide because of his duty to others in the community. Not viewed as atomistic individuals who are loosely connected to others, humans practically live in systems. It is held that their willingness to live in the face of pain, boredom, and suffering is:
“… (a) a moral service to one another; (b) a sign that life can be endured; (c) an opportunity to teach others how to die, how to face life, how to live well, and how a wise person understands the connection between happiness and evil (e.g., one does not obtain joy or live a good life only when he avoids hardship, but when he learns to live with it); and (d) a way of refusing to give the community a morally unhelpful memory of the person who committed suicide, which could hurt those left behind in their attempt to live well as individuals and in community with others. An act of suicide signals the failure of the community to be present to care for the suicidal person in his time of need, and it signals the person’s lack of care for the community.” (Moreland, n.d.)
Furthermore, some argue that suicide is inconsistent with the very nature of medicine, especially the authority of medicine. It is claimed that medicine is not to be defined merely as a technological field and its authority is not just that of a technologically skilled group of people:
“It is the authority of a virtuous profession wherein people in a community signal the virtue of being present for one another in time of need. The medical professional expresses his or her commitment to be present to heal or to care for the weak and sick when care cannot be reciprocated. The sick person signals his or her desire to place trust in the community’s representative, the medical personnel, and allow the community to care for that person in time of need. Suicide signals a break in this value to be present for one another in time of need, and thus suicide is inconsistent with the presuppositions that make medicine itself intelligible.” (Moreland, n.d.) … continue reading
Read: Euthanasia: Moral or Immoral?
© 2013-present by Jensen DG. Mañebog / MyInfoBasket.com
Also Check Out: From Socrates to Mill: An Analysis of Prominent Ethical Theories, also by author Jensen DG. Mañebog
REFERENCES:
J.P. Moreland, “The Morality Of Suicide: Issues And Options” In Bibliotecha Sacra (April/June 1991), pp. 214-230. afterall.net
“Kant on Suicide.” philosophynow.org
“Immanuel Kant on Suicide.” euthanasia.com
Click when you’re DONE with your assignment
NOTE TO STUDENTS: If the comment section fails to function, just SHARE this article to your social media account (Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, etc) and start the conversation there.