7. Kantian Ethics 2022

Our Funky HTML Page

Some people think the law should be changed to allow assisted dying in cases where someone has a terminal illness and is facing the prospect of a painful and unpleasant death.

Explain and evaluate whether a follower of Kantian ethics would support such a change.

SQA Higher Philosophy 2022

It is important to remember that a scenario question is always just a device to get you to discuss the ethical theory. In this case, if you describe Kantian ethics, come up with a maxim that seems to allow assisted dying, and conclude by saying the theory gives clear advice and so is a helpful theory, it may appear that you have answered the question but you will have done so without engaging in any discussion of the theory. Unless there are clear instructions to the contrary, you should assume that an essay requires you to engage in some kind of debate. Before starting your essay it is always a good idea to ask yourself, 'What particular problems with the theory are highlighted by this scenario?' Your answer to this question will give you a very good idea of what you need to be writing about.

Exemplar answer.

1

The most natural reading of Kant is that he would generally disagree with voluntary euthanasia or assisted dying.
2

Kantian ethics is a non-consequentialist theory, i.e. the consequences of an action are not what determine whether something is right or wrong. If something is right or wrong it is right or wrong irrespective of the consequences. In this particular case, whether or not legalising assisted dying reduces suffering or has unintended consequences for society is, for a Kantian, irrelevant.
3

Kantian ethics is a deontological theory, which is to say we have a duty to follow the moral law and the moral law is summed up by the categorical imperative.

There are two formulations of the categorical imperative that concern us:

1: Act as though the maxim of your action were to become, through your will, a universal law of nature.

2: Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means.

Despite appearing quite different, as far as Kant is concerned these two formulations amount to the same thing. They should both lead to the same moral advice. If they don't then that would show there was something wrong with Kant's theory.
4

Kant also distinguishes between perfect duties to self and to others, and imperfect duties to self and to others. Perfect duties allow no exceptions; imperfect duties are such that they must be carried out to some extent and some of the time.
5

To illustrate the two formulations and and the various duties Kant uses four examples. His first example, which he applies to both formulations, is that we have a perfect duty to avoid suicide. Being a perfect duty there are no exceptions to this. His reasoning is as follows:

With regard to the first formulation Kant says someone would be acting on the maxim 'For love of myself, I make it my principle to cut my life short when prolonging it threatens to bring more troubles than satisfactions.' The attempt to universalise this maxim, he says, leads to a contradiction in conception for then the principle of self-love would lead simultaneously to a desire to both prolong and shorten life. When there is a contradiction in conception there is a perfect duty not to act on the maxim.

With regard to the second formulation Kant says if someone escapes their burdensome situation by destroying themself, they are using a person (in this case themself) merely as a means to keeping themself in a tolerable condition up to the end of their life. There is a perfect duty to avoid using someone (including yourself) as a means only so there is a perfect duty not to commit suicide.

It is clear that the same reasoning would lead to the conclusion that it is always wrong to assist someone to end their life.
6 It is tempting to suggest there are alternative maxims that would lead to a different outcome. Certainly, the possibility of alternative maxims and the difficulty of identifying the correct maxim are criticisms of Kantian ethics but we should remember that this is Kant's own example and can, therefore, be taken as definitive as to how the theory should be applied. In any case, noting alternative maxims with a different outcome doesn't help us determine what a Kantian should do, it is, rather, a reason for saying the theory is flawed. If we look for another maxim because we don't like the outcome then we are acting like a consequentialist and trying to get a non-consequentialist theory to fit in with our consequentialist thinking.
7 The lengths to which Kant would go to ignore consequences becomes clear in his story of the pursuing murderer. You should not tell a lie even if you think it is the only way to save a life. These kinds of conclusions strike many people as absurd and are reason enough for rejecting Kantian ethics. However, we need to be careful. Rejecting the theory because we don't like the outcome looks dangerously like a fallacious appeal to consequences. Evaluating a moral theory by what it says about a single issue is, in any case, somewhat problematic. If, instead, it delivered a conclusion that was approved of that wouldn't necessarily make it a good theory as there might be all sorts of other reasons for rejecting the theory and if the theory is rejected because of these then what it does or does not say about assisted suicide becomes moot.
8 Kant rejects consideration of the consequences because they cannot be known for certain. It is true that consequences cannot be known with certainty but making reasonable predictions is an essential part of many life decisions, business planning, etc. If making reasonable predictions is such an essential feature of human existence it is, at the very least, odd that it should be excluded from moral reasoning. Kant wanted a moral law within that was a certain as the scientific laws that describe the natural world but perhaps there is no such law. Perhaps moral reasoning is always going to be more like a negotiation between competing interests. Kantian ethics reminds us to ask if it makes sense to want everyone to act in a certain way and to not make ourself an exception. It also reminds us to show respect to others and to treat people with dignity. However, it is probably wrong to assume that these considerations are by themselves enough to guide us when it comes to complex moral issues such as assisted dying.

933 words

  1. This is a clear statement of the position I am taking but leaves open the possibility that there may be some situations where Kantian ethics might still allow assisted dying. For example, if 'humanity' is equated with our capacity for reason then perhaps it may be permitted for those in a permanent coma or even in cases of severe dementia. This would also open the possibility of involuntary euthanasia in these cases as well as voluntary euthanasia in accordance with an advance directive. It isn't necessary to discuss these cases in connection with the given scenario.
  2. Apart from those approaching the topic from a religious perspective, debates about assisted dying, whether for or against, are almost always a debate about consequences. It is crucial, therefore, to appreciate the non-cosequentialist nature of Kantian ethics. It is such a distinctive feature of the theory that it is likely to be a good starting point for many scenario based questions. An exception might be if the scenario is clearly directing you down the path of considering a conflict of duties.
  3. This is purely descriptive material. It is essential that you are able to state the two formulations. You also need to be able to explain and apply them. This is the essence of Kantian ethics. However, being able to accurately state them is a pre-requisite. A common error is to think that the second formulation is only about how you treat others. Note that it is about how you treat humanity 'whether in your own person or in that of anyone else'. The formulation rules out treating yourself as a means only. This is crucial to understanding why Kant is opposed to suicide.
  4. Making the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties helps to explain Kant's 'hard line' attitude to lying and, in this case, suicide.
  5. Knowledge of Kants four examples are not a required part of the course. They are not listed as part of the mandatory content. They are, however, included in Appendix 5 where it is said the relevant text extracts are included for 'illustrative purposes to exemplify the philosophical positions and arguments that candidates are required to study.' Even though they are not required, knowing Kant's own examples and how he used them will give a clearer understanding of how the two formulations work and what is meant by perfect and imperfect duties. In this essay it is obviously very helpful to know what Kant said about suicide.
  6. In this paragraph I am flagging up that I am aware of certain criticisms of Kantian ethics. In another essay this might have been developed by giving examples of maxims that would seem to lead to different answers.
  7. It is important not to get sidetracked into a long description of the pursuing murderer story. There is just enough here to show that I am familiar with it and it is a useful way of reinforcing the non-consequentialist nature of Kantian ethics and leads into the discussion of whether it makes sense to ignore consequences.
  8. In this final paragraph I have tried to give a balanced conclusion. By returning to the key issue of consequences flagged up at the beginning of the essay I hope to have given the essay a clear focus. A weak answer would simply say they disagree with Kant ignoring consequences. This paragraph goes further and argues why it is reasonable to take consequences into account. Nevertheless, I have also tried to draw out something useful from the Kantian approach whilst at the same time making it clear that I don't find it an adequate way of dealing with moral issues.