KANTIANISM AND EUTHANASIA ATTITUDES TO KEY ISSUES

KEY ISSUES Key issues surrounding euthanasia (the “mercy killing” of a human being who is suffering) include: The idea of life as a gift Sanctity of life Quality of life Active vs. passive euthanasia Whether it should be legalised in the UK The role of the doctor in euthanasia What a dignified death is

THE MORAL LAW While Immanuel Kant did not believe in the concept of human life as a gift, he did state that it was a duty according to the “law of nature” to preserve life at any cost. He believed it should be protected, and that we have a duty to do so – therefore, he saw it as a human right. He also believed that people were forbidden from using life to take a life: otherwise, this would be a violation of this law of nature, as the purpose of life is to continue itself. This can be applied to euthanasia in the knowledge that were it to be legalised in the UK, there would have to be rigorous steps taken to ensure that someone really wanted to die (as there are at Dignitas, the Swiss charity that currently offers the only opportunity for a British citizen to be legally euthanised). This involves using a life (i.e., a mind to plan the actions, and a physical body to sign several forms which would be required for the euthanasia to happen, among many other things) to bring about the taking of a life; as an agent who takes his own life acts in violation of the moral law, euthanasia (as it is a form of assisted suicide) must be, for Kant, wrong.

DESIRE & THE HYPOTHETICAL IMPERATIVE For Immanuel Kant, emotions were irrelevant in making moral decisions – morality had to be guided by reasoned duty instead. Donating money to charity, for example, out of compassion would be wrong – it would only be the correct thing to do if it were done out of duty. The same applies to active euthanasia – no matter how much someone feels that they should have it, this is only a desire, so it is irrelevant to what actually should be done. Kant separated moral thought into two divisions: the hypothetical and categorical imperatives. The former applies only conditionally, telling us how to act in order to achieve a specific goal; e.g., I must study to get a degree. As shown later, Kantianism cannot reconcile the concept of euthanasia and the categorical imperative, but others may use the hypothetical imperative to allow it: i.e., “if a person is suffering unbearably, they should receive euthanasia”. However, Kant opposed the hypothetical imperative in ethical decision-making.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: UNIVERSALISATION Any Kantian decision about euthanasia, like any decision about an ethical issue, must obey the three principles of the categorical imperative, a set of rules that govern all moral laws. The principles are: A maxim must be able to be universalised; act as if you are a lawmaking member of the kingdom of ends; and people should be treated as ends in themselves, not means to ends. Universalising the maxim “I should help someone to die” gives the law that everyone should be helped to die - a violation in the law of nature, as if everyone should be helped to die, there would be nobody left alive to help them. If you took the maxim “I should help a person who is terminally ill, suffering unbearably and desperate to die to do so” you might create a more acceptable universal rule such as “anyone who is terminally and incurably ill, suffering greatly and has freely chosen to die, should be helped to die”. However, it is obvious that no maxim on the subject of euthanasia can be universalised; using life to destroy a life is a violation in the law of nature and a contradiction in itself. You would not will for yourself to be killed, so you should not will it for others, otherwise it is a “contradiction in the will”.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: MEANS AND ENDS Another principle of the categorical imperative is that people should be treated as ends, rather than only means to ends: they should be valued as persons themselves for the reason that they are persons, not for any other. For instance, you should not marry someone purely because they can elevate your social status, as this is using them as a means to an end. In euthanasia, as it is assisted suicide, the doctor who assists you is not used based on their intrinsic moral value but for their capability to help you kill yourself (they are used as a means to an end); therefore, this is morally wrong for a Kantian. Euthanasia is also outlawed by this principle, as because we are rational beings, our inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better. It depends on the sanctity and not the quality of our lives. Therefore, receiving euthanasia disrespects our own human value, and we should not end our lives just because it seems the most effective way of putting an end to our suffering.

THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE: KINGDOM OF ENDS / DUTY & GOOD WILL Kant believed that once humans have used reason – and the categorical imperative – to get to an ethical conclusion that is acceptable, they must perform this reasoned duty. Also, all people should reach the same decision based on reason: act as if you are a lawmaking member in the kingdom of ends. However, the concept of “reasoned duty” for a Kantian is not as simple as something which you have to do. Duties should be hard to do and performed against one’s natural instincts. Therefore, it could be argued that it is a duty to organise the euthanasia of a suffering relative, as it causes emotional pain and goes against instinct. However, it cannot be a duty because of the principles of the categorical imperative – if the relative is suffering makes this “duty” into a hypothetical imperative, so it is therefore superseded again by the categorical imperative. Also, carrying out duty means carrying out the good will, and killing another human being is not “carrying out the good will” because it is not duty.

EVALUATING KANTIANISM Kantianism has several strengths and weaknesses when applied to euthanasia. One strength is that it focuses on people’s humanity and the sanctity of their lives, as opposed to how they can be used to achieve ends. Also, as it concludes that euthanasia is morally wrong, doctors will not have to make difficult decisions as to whether they should perform euthanasia or not – it would simply be illegal. It is not based on compassion, so we can make reason-based conclusions that can be universalised, as opposed to compassionate and hypothetical conclusions. Weaknesses of Kantianism include that it makes no distinction between killing (active euthanasia) and allowing to die (passive euthanasia). This is important because one is legal in the UK, and one is not. It also does not focus on the fact that perhaps, if humans are to be treated with intrinsic value, a dignified death (i.e., euthanasia) would be better for them. Also, it is extremely rigid and does not allow for the fact that different situations may require compassion in order to make any practical decisions regarding euthanasia.