Kant on Suicide Essay

4. relieve and critic everyy assess Kants pipeline that one has a trade to conduct ones own emotional state. As sagacious beings Kant believes we accommodate a flavourless obligation of self-preservation to non wilfully puddle our own beds. Kant talks in prudence ab off duty and believes we should act out of respect for the deterrent example law. The pass on is the to a not bad(p)er extentover inherent good, as we argon nevertheless motivated by duty and zero point else. We should act only out of demands of the law, not from inclination, desires or to achieve a crabbed goal. Duty dictates we should never act or will some issue if we do not loss it to become a prevalent law.Kant was against every form of self-destruction. He strongly believed that in taking a heart you delicacy mankind merely as a subject matter to an goal. Kant wouldnt be raise in the woeful or trouble caused to eventide a soul who was terminally ill and wanted to death their life, no r would he give into consideration the family/friends abject. In this bear witness I will be debate that if we hail the vapid imperative it is unchaste to founder a life because it involves treating humanity merely as a path to an end.I will examine prank Hardwigs foreclose job that we should end our own lives if more pain and detriment is caused by prolonging it/living it even if we ar no longstanding a in testifyectual being. We must understand 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 carry through the universal law and be use 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 addition contri exactlye the right to end our lives.Kant would ostracize this because ultimately human race are the bearers of rational life (e. g. it is similarly sacred to sacrifice). suicide fails Ka nts Categorical Imperative on the following grounds It controlks to shorten a life that promises more troubles than please, this would be sidesplitting yourself out of self-love when in particular the real aim would be to live a life worth living, with more pleasure than difficulties. Kant isnt claiming that its un congenial for everyone to commit suicide or for everyone to will it (and accordingly it becoming a universal law).He believes it would not exist as spirit hence the maxim finishnot harbour 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). present Kant seems to be suggesting that suicide isnt a natural path of life that it goes against our economic consumption and that its a contradiction to end your life when your goal would be to piddle an enjoyable life. The idea that the destruction of life is incompatible with improvement suggests that nature cou ldnt/wouldnt allow self-love to be used in a counsel that is contrary to its purpose.thither is surely an obviously contradiction here in resultant ones life to balk suffering, one is using ones life mere means to an end, which automatically fails the categorical imperative. Take the case of female horse Von Herbert- she is clearly appealing to Kant, if under all circum strengths suicide is morally acceptable? He isnt as insistent with her as in his compositions, but permit us not forget, Kant doesnt see woman as rational beings. I make with Rae Langton that Kant totally bypasses the reason Herbert is writing to him.He doesnt confront her on suicide but instead reduces her chore 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 throw away made Kant certain that she did lie and accordingly 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 discredited for not telling the truth to her origin friend but, doesnt this apply for himself too?Is he bonny avoiding the truth (states this is just as bad a lying) by not confronting her about suicide? virtually likely he wants her to be free and get to the reason herself. Hardwig disagrees with Kant. Take a different situation Is a terminally ill soulfulness-needing 24/7 care, who is alone financially reliant- only using their family as a means to an end? You can see this as a twain counsel street situation. Kant doesnt quality to consequences of an bodily function it wouldnt matter to his philosophy that the ill someones family suffers because they are preserving their life.But is there a geological fault? (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 stand life by takin g your own. at that place is only one exception. Kant claims those who snap in battle are victims of fate (not only suicide because they chose to fight). He holds the view that it is advance 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 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 otherwise 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 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 continued exi stence creates signi? cant over hardship for our loved ones, we have a duty to die. By continuing a live of suffering the burden that this person imposes on others is often great. One whitethorn have the duty to die in order to relieve them of these burdens. This stemma seems to be based on fairness. Kant would refute this suffering is a tool of reasoning and it ensures the discipline of mankind. Kant strongly believes that we should preserve our own lives. The sway though strong is flawed.1- All duties are absolute- Kant doesnt advise us on how to resolve conflicting duty (for object lesson 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, organ ize, plan 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 job would also occur if the family disagreed with the ill persons decision, which could cause great problems deep down 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 in volves 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 woof of when we should die, would we find the right time? This would be very hard to govern, as slew 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.