Kant Suicide

It is apparent in this case that the issue in question is the act of killing and the act of suicide. However, unlike other cases of killing and suicide, there are several things that serve to complicate this issue. First is the fact that the murder appears to be done with consent coming from the person killed. Based from the letter Adrienne wrote to her children, it is clear that both she and Mr. Snelling discussed their plans to end their life together. Apart from this, the fact that the wife was sick with a disease that would gravely affect her day-to-day activities as well as that of her family is also something that must be considered. Also, it must also be pointed out that right after killing his wife, Mr. Snelling promptly committed suicide.
Given all these, the question now remains whether Mr. Snelling’s act of killing and suicide can be considered morally right given the added details stated. As a preliminary answer to this question, it must be noted that most people who sympathize with what Mr.
Snelling did only do so because of the particulars of the situation. They believe that the act was morally permissible due to the fact that Adrienne had Alzheimer's and that she had agreed to end her life. In addition to this, the killing and suicide appears to be done in order to mitigate further suffering. However, if one looks at Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, it is evident that this type of analysis is flawed. According to Kant, the rightness or wrongness of an action does not rest upon the particulars of the situation. Therefore, if one were to use Kantian ideas, Mr. Snelling’s actions cannot be deemed morally right only based on the unique circumstances of his situation. With this, it is therefore necessary to further look at the complexities of the issue and to identify how ethical theories may either support or discredit the moral rightness of Mr. Snelling’s acts. Among the pertinent details of the issue, the fact that the killing and suicide was planned and agreed upon seems to be one of the things that stand out the most in this issue. Looking at Adrienne’s letter to her children, it is evident that the killing and suicide had been planned by the
couple. Using Aristotelian ideas, such acts must have been aimed toward some good. Looking at Adrienne’s letter to her kids, it is apparent that the couple agreed to end their lives together due to their belief that they can no longer be happy with the current state of things.
With this, it can therefore be deduced that Mr. and Mrs. Snelling chose to end their lives in order to avoid further suffering. At first glance, one might say that this is in agreement with the greatest happiness principle and can therefore be considered morally right. However, if one were to consider how Mill defined the greatest happiness principle, one would see that Mr. Snelling’s act does not actually agree with utilitarian principles. According to Mill, a morally right act is one that maximizes happiness. Here, maximizing happiness refers to both its quantity and quality. Looking at what Mr. Snelling did, it is apparent that it does not promote general happiness. No child would find happiness in his parent’s death. In addition to this, the quality of happiness that Mr. Snelling’s acts produced cannot be deemed of high worth. It can be argued that only living people feel happiness and therefore, once Mr. and Mrs. Snelling chose to end their life, they also chose to end
happiness. In other words, the only happiness that Mr. Snelling’s acts produced was the anticipation of an end to suffering felt right before death. This kind of happiness could not be considered of high worth not only because of its highly fleeting nature but also because it is dependent upon that which prevents happiness from ever taking place. Using Kantian ideas, it can be said that such acts cannot be universalizable due to the fact that it creates a contradiction. Mr. and Mrs. Snelling chose to end their life in order to avoid suffering and because they saw no hope in finding happiness. However, their very act of ending their lives was what actually destroyed any hope of them ever finding happiness. With this it can be said that using utilitarian and Kantian principles, Mr. Snelling’s act cannot be considered morally right. On the other hand, if one considered Aristotelian views, one would find that a similar conclusion could be made. According to Aristotle, in order to arrive at a morally right act, practical judgment must be employed. It is important to deliberate for the best means towards an end. While some may argue that Mr. Snelling’s acts can be considered morally right because it was a result of deliberation, it must be noted that Aristotle specifies that the kind of deliberation employed must be of excellent nature. What this means is that when employing practical judgment, the goal is always the entire wellbeing of the person. The death of a person does not promote that person’s wellbeing and therefore, under Aristotelian ideas, Mr. and Mrs. Snelling’s decision to end their lives cannot be considered morally right.