Kant on Suicide Essay

4. Explain and critically assess Kants tune that unity has a indebtedness to persist in ones suffer biography. As noetic beings Kant believes we dole out away a categorical barter of self-preservation to not wilfully take let out our own lives. Kant talks in depth about affair and believes we should act out of respect for the moral fairness. The allow for is the just inhering good, as we atomic number 18 barely motivated by barter and zilch else. We should act only out of demands of the law, not from inclination, commits or to achieve a particular goal. Duty dictates we should never act or will slightly involvement if we do not want it to become a oecumenical law.Kant was against any radiation diagram of suicide. He strongly believed that in pickings a life you airiness humanity merely as a room to an ratiocination. Kant wouldnt be interested in the suffering or pain caused to even a someone who was terminally ill and wanted to end their life, nor wou ld he take into consideration the family/friends suffering. In this essay I will be argue that if we assume the categorical autocratic it is immoral to sacrifice a life because it involves treating humanity merely as a government agency to an end.I will examine John Hardwigs envision argument that we should end our own lives if more pain and suffering is caused by prolonging it/living it even if we argon no longer a rational being. We must understand that Kant is verbalise if I make a maxium e. g. if I am in un take backable suffering, I should take my own life it must meet the universal law and be applied to everyone. Kant believes we ought to preserve our own lives because it is our moral duty (it is necessary and universal). John Hardwig however, would argue we in like manner have the right to end our lives.Kant would dismiss this because ultimately military personnel are the bearers of rational life (e. g. it is to a fault sacred to sacrifice). Suicide fails Kants C ategorical Imperative on the avocation grounds It jibeks to shorten a life that promises more troubles than please, this would be cleanup yourself out of self-love when in fact the real aim 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 wherefore it becoming a universal law).He believes it would not exist as nature hence the maxim cannot 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 path of life that it goes against our purpose and that its a contradiction in terms to end your life when your goal would be to have an enjoyable life. The idea that the destruction of life is incompatible with improvement suggests that nature couldnt/wouldnt allow self-love to be used in a way that is contrary to its purpose.There is surely an obviously contradiction here in ending ones life to thwart suffering, one is using ones life mere representation to an end, which automatically fails the categorical imperative. Take the case of mare Von Herbert- she is clearly large-hearted to Kant, if under any circumstances suicide is morally acceptable? He isnt as blatant with her as in his writings, but let us not forget, Kant doesnt see woman as rational beings. I agree with Rae Langton that Kant totally bypasses the reason Herbert is writing to him.He doesnt confront her on suicide but instead reduces her problem to a moral dilemma (regrets lying or telling the truth ), 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 dry land 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 telling the truth to her former friend but, doesnt this apply for himself too?Is he that avoiding the truth (states this is just as bad a lying) by not confronting her about suicide? Most likely he wants her to be self-reliant and get to the reason herself. Hardwig disagrees with Kant. Take a different situation 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 find out to consequences of an action it wouldnt matter to his philosophy that the ill persons family suffers because they are pre serving their life.But is there a flaw? (1) I ought to do my duty as long as I am resilient 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 pop off in battle are victims of fate ( not simply suicide because they chose to fight). He holds the view that it is better to hand out in battle than to congest 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 forced 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 impeccant to live in the way we want, so why arent we poverty-stricken to die in the way we want (when and how)? He also switches the dubiousness 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 then concludes, if our continue existence creates signi? cant hardship for our loved ones, we have a duty to die. B y continuing a live of suffering the burden that this person imposes on others is often salient. One may have the duty to die in order to relieve them of these burdens. This argument seems to be based on fairness. Kant would refute this suffering is a tool of reasoning and it ensures the development of mankind. Kant strongly believes that we should preserve our own lives. The argument though strong is flawed.1- All duties are absolute- Kant doesnt advise us on how to resolve conflicting 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 valuable because humans are the bearers of rational life. We have the great capacity to think, organize, plan etcetera and Kant holds this as being valuable.Therefore we should not sacrifice t his 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 preclude 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 m? This would be very hard to govern, as people would of course 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.