Kant vs Euthanasia
- This is a preview of the essay.
To view the full text you must login!
Kant vs Euthanasia
Kantian ethics have a strong influence on a human's autonomy, desires, and choices. The philosopher himself views human beings as rational freedoms and fundamental autonomies who are capable of self-rule and reasoning, and establishing one's own goals/ends. He demonstrates this freedom carefully from our ability to use the categorical imperative as our principle of action. Kant argues that the categorical imperative is what we "ought" to live by in order to fulfill his version of an ideal democratic society, where reason would tie us together. The word "ought" is used because the categorical imperative issues the form of universality as a law, and universality is a universally shared characteristic of the moral "ought." Every individual, culture, or society expresses "ought" with regard to a given content, such as "You ought not lie." However, Kant's categorical imperative only partially agrees to his views on ethical debates such as the debate over Euthanasia.
Kant's categorical imperative states: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." His ethical beliefs on freedom were not regarded as lawless freedom on anarchy, but as the freedom of self-government, the freedom to obey consciously the laws of the universe. He believed that each individual should be regarded as an end in itself and never as merely a means to an end...