One Of The Most Ambiguous Forms Of Moral Philosophy

Moral Philosophy is arguably one of the most ambiguous forms of philosophy, but is also one of the most necessary. We, as humans, seek some moral reference point from which we can assign moral good and bad in everyday life. However, it is not clear exactly which moral standard, if any, is closest to this intangible moral ideal. The problem is that, when speaking of morality, there are so many factors and perspectives to consider. First there is the intention of the person which determines the desired outcome of the action regardless of the practical consequences. Then, following action, you have consequences; these consequences will affect not only the individual and parties directly related, but may also affect the lives of other individuals
and even the structure of society as a whole. Kant’s Deontology, a moral philosophy based on moral duty, focuses on the intentions behind a person's action rather than the consequences the actions brings. In his explanation of Deontology Kant uses reason to create absolute moral laws that have no exceptions. One such law states that suicide, defined as the intention to end one’s own life, violates one’s duty to oneself and is, in every situation morally impermissible. However, I will argue that there are some forms of suicide that do not violate Deontological Moral Laws. Deontology is a moral philosophy that is based in moral duty. This philosophy does not take into account the consequences of and action when considering moral standing, but only considers the intention of the action. Bby remaining independent of consequences, the philosophy gains some accuracy that would be lost if one merely considered the consequences that followed the action. For example, if a man attempted to kill a woman with poison and failed, then, when one considers only the consequences, as the would-be murderer actually done anything wrong? What if instead of killing the woman he inadvertently cures her of a life threatening ailment. He may have inadvertently saved her life while attempting to end it.Is this action praiseworthy? He may have inadvertently saved her life while attempting to end it. Kant determined that, if we want to understand the moral value of the man’s actions, we must consider action’s moral worth based solely on the intentions that prompted it and not the positive or negative consequences that it may bring about.
Kant also separates actions into two hierarchical classes: hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives. An action is a hypothetical imperative when it is simply a means to a desirable end. For example, you decide to volunteer at an animal shelter so that you can fulfill your service hour requirement for school. This action would be an example of a hypothetical imperative, because you are not volunteering because you think that volunteering is good in itself. You only chose to volunteer because you see volunteering as a way to obtain something else. According to Kant these types of action can never be morally praiseworthy, because we do not undertake them for their intrinsic value; we just use them as tools to obtain something else. In The Grounding of Metaphysics and Morals Kant claims that when we act in the hypothetical imperative we are no longer autonomous, or in control of our own actions. Instead, Kant claims that we are heteronomous; we are allowing some outside force, the instinct to seek something we think will be pleasurable, to motivate and control our actions. Kant states that when we do this we are acting in the same manner that animals act and that when we act in this manner we are not fully human. We are allowing our instinctive longing for satisfaction to control our actions. When we act in this manner our actions are morally destitute.
The second, higher degree of action is the categorical imperative.
Kant postulated that there was a universal, undeniable moral law that would, in every case, bring us to the morally right choice. This moral law is founded in human reason; every reasoning human being is born with the capacity to comprehend this moral law. Furthermore, this moral law only applies when the subject of an action is also a reasoning being. This means that the morality of actions only matters when that action affects a human being. If one were to intentionally harm a human being then the action would be morally reprehensible. However, if the same action was taken against a dog, who is incapable of reason, then there would be not moral significance behind the action. The categorical imperative is expressed in four ways. In this paper, I will describe the first two expressions of the categorical imperative. the first expression, The Formula of Universal Law,, states that an action is morally permissible if the maxim,the principle behind an action, could become a universal law.. For example, if a man decided to end his own life, because he saw nothing besides evil and suffering in his future then the maxim of that action is as follows: when one feels that there is nothing left in life besides evil and suffering then it is permissible to end one’s own life. Now to apply this maxim universally we will say that if everyone in existence chose along the lines of this maxim when faced with a similar situation, what would be the result? Most of those that have lived have experienced similar despair. . Therefore,if this maxim was universally applied, then most of the people that have ever lived, or will ever live will commit suicide when faced with despair. This mass suicide would end the lives of billions and the world would fall into chaos. This would undoubtedly throw more people into despair who would then also commit suicide, until humanity is extinguished. Therefore committing suicide
would violate the first expression of the categorical imperative and is not morally permissible. The second expression of the categorical imperative is known as The Formula of Humanity and states as follows: Act in such a way so that you always treat humanity, both yours and others, not as a means, but always as an end-in-itself. Simply stated, this expression requires that an action adequately respect the humanity of each human being. This expression prohibits treating human lives merely as a means, or a tool, to be used and discarded. Instead, we must treat each life as if it holds its own intrinsic value. When a man commits suicide, he treats his own human life as a means of ending, or avoiding pain. In doing so, he disrespects his humanity and acts in violation of the categorical imperative. Therefore, the act of suicide violates both the Formula of Universal Law and the Formula of Humanity and can be declared morally impermissible.
However, this conclusion does not hold true when we consider the different forms of suicide. As previously stated, traditional suicide, the nding of one’s own life in order to avoid pain, violates both expressions of the categorical imperative, but this is not the only situation that fits the definition of suicide. Euthanasia, self sacrifice and self execution may all fit the criteria for suicide.
Euthanasia is the ending of one’s life with the assistance of another. Many times when eutanazia is committed it is to spare the victim from the pain of terminal illness or some other certain death. Now this action can be viewed in many ways, but for the purposes of this argument we will examine it as a suicide. according to Kantian Moral Law the intention to end one’s own life is more important the specific means one employs to realize that intention. Therefore, euthanasia is a form of suicide and is subject to the same conclusions that we drew earlier regard its moral permissibility. However, what if the victim is braindead? This changes the entire situation. First of all, a brain dead victim must have a living will that would authorize euthanasia in the case that the victim is unable to do so himself. Furthermore, when the actual euthanasia occurs the victim will no longer have the capacity to reason as a human being. If the victim, at the time the euthanasia takes place, lacks the ability to reason, then, according To Kant’s understanding of humanity, the victim is no longer human and euthanizing him would have no moral bearing. It would not matter morally if he decided to take his own life because that life would have already lost the quality that makes it human: the ability to reason.
What if one takes an action with the intention of saving another while knowing that such an action will also cause the end of his life? We do not view such self-sacrifice as a form of suicide even though it meets all the same criteria. For example, we do not see the death of Jesus as a suicide even though it was within his power (supposedly) to prevent his death. Similarly the death of Socrates is not seen as him taking his own life, but rather as him surrendering his life in duty to society. In both these cases the intention of the action, or inaction was to take one’s own life. however, the motives behind these actions are not congruent with the motives of traditional suicide. Neither Socrates or Jesus took their own lives in order to avoid experiencing some pain or evil. Both of these men sacrificed their own lives to fulfill their duty to something that they considered to be higher than themselves. So is this actoni suicide and therefore morally impermissible, or is this action the fulfilment of s supererogatory duty to others and therefore morally permissible? in this question there appears to be a conflict of duty; however, according to Kantian Moral Law if one is reaoning clearly then there will never be a true conflict of duties. When assessing the catagorical imperative