Euthanasia and Moral Philosophy (Coursework Sample)

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Euthanasia and moral philosophy
Immanuel Kant’s contribution to various areas not only in the western world but also in the world, in general, is notable influencing philosophical thoughts and notions. John Stuart Mill, going by the utilitarian philosophy, has a significant contribution to people’s reasoning and influences how they make decisions today. It is hard to ignore Kant’s and Mill’s contribution to ethics and morality since they are of great importance to those who have run-ins with them. This writing will evaluate the theories that Kant and Mills advanced in an application in solving the issue of allowing euthanasia, a constant on-going moral debate in the medical realms. Euthanasia involves deliberate killing of an individual for his or her benefit. It is giving a person a painless and natural death to end their suffering from an agonizing and incurable ailment. It can be voluntary, involuntary, non-voluntary, passive, or active. Both moral laws can be useful in the making of the decision on the moral compass when deciding if to allow mercy killing or not.
The moral law, when using moral Kant, stands against euthanasia with an argument that it is wrong morally. The moral philosophy that Immanuel Kant holds is that human life, not a gift and instead, it is a right and as such, it is a duty to protect it at whatever cost. It is forbidden and morally wrong to use a life to end another life (Amarasekara, Mirko 1-2). Euthanasia in its very nature is a violation of the law of nature on life according to Kant’s theory since the theory holds that life has the purpose and responsibility to continue itself.
For this theory, emotions are not relevant to the decision-making process. In making a moral decision, guidance is by a reasoned duty rather than emotions, and as such, sympathy has no role to play in making the decision of providing mercy killing to an individual. When making this moral decision, using this line of reasoning, Kantian philosophy provides categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Kantianism fails to reconcile euthanasia with the categorical imperative even though others may make use of the hypothetical imperative to allow euthanasia. This means that if a person is in a lot of suffering and pain, then they should receive the euthanasia to reduce suffering (Rachels, 103-148). However, Kant was in opposition to the use of hypothetical imperatives when having ethical decision-making.
Like any decision-making process using Kantian philosophy, the decision must obey the three principles. It is important that to universalize the maxim, to make the decision acting as a law-making kingdom, and that it is important to treat people as ends as opposed to a means to an end. In this context, universalizing this maxim of helping someone to die may give the law that it is okay to help everyone to die, and this is violating the law of nature. If it was possible to help everyone die, then no one will be alive to help anyone to die eventually (Kant 3). Another maxim may be that it is okay to help someone with a terminal illness to die because they are suffering unbearably and desperate to die. It may be slightly acceptable, but it is important to note that destroying life using life is a violation of nature and this in itself is a contradiction. If one does not will to receive help to die, then he or she should not will it for others. Any alternative move is a contradiction of will.
Utility or the greatest happiness principle a product of utilitarian creed holds that an action is a right to the extent that it provides happiness or wrong to the extent that it results in the opposite of happiness. Happiness is the absence of pain or an intended pleasure. In the context of euthanasia, happiness is the absence of pain the patient is in their illness. I...