Posted by Timothy Sutton on June 06, 19103 at 02:08:47:
In Reply to: Re: Kant on Euthanasia posted by trey on November 17, 19101 at 23:08:05:
Wow I wish I had had your response. When I went to write that paper for cl well thanks any how....
: "Every person who is in extreme and non-reversible physical suffering ought to be given the option to have their own life quickly and painlessly taken". Sounds like a good maxim to me, and it treats persons as ends also.
: First, something about euthenasia. There is not just one conception of euthenasia. There are several, and each comes with its own set of arguments. For instance, I has umed in my maxim above that the person in question is a rational being of sound mind. I have also umed, and can make the argument, that it is more ethical to engage in active euthenasia once euthenasia has been chosen.
: Second, whether one can universalize a maxim or not under the categorical imperative has more to do with how you state your maxim than with the maxim itself. For instance, I can universalize the claim "Trey can kill anyone he wants so long as he is sure he will get away with it". I can universalize this and it does not seem to admit of a self-refutation (which is Kant's critera for a non-universalizable maxim). Of course, we would hardly say that my maxim is ethical by any sense. If you are given a choice of philosophies, I would probably not go with Kant. Better arguments can be made on utilitarian grounds; although these arguments, in order to avoid a slippery slope, have to be pretty detailed.
: --Good luck.
: : Hello, Im writing an essay on applying Kants moral thoughts to euthanasia. My basic feeling is that Kant would be agianst euthanasia, and by the terms of you can not unversalize euthanasia in saying that everyone if in suffering should be given death. Although I need a little more info then this to go on. If some more rules for Kant please respond and let me know.