Reign of King Henry VIII

¶ … reign of King Henry VIII of England has gone down in history as one of the most violent and tyrannical rules in the recorded western tradition. Yet, at the same time, his drastically self-interested acts as king managed to significantly alter the course of English history. Furthermore, the philosophical and moral questions that his reign posed both the people living in his age and today remain relevant and compelling. Much of the moral debate surrounding Henry VIII can be represented with the case of Sir Thomas More, who was one of the few to oppose the king in his quest to find a worthy bride. However, rather than opposing his actions merely upon the grounds that they interfered with his own life, he opposed them on his own, unique moral conditions.

Essentially, Henry became angered with Wolsey's inability to convince the Pope to have his marriage annulled, so he stripped him of his titles and powers -- just as the queen wanted -- and put Thomas More in his place as Lord Chancellor and Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury. Subsequently, in 1533, Cranmer, without the Pope's consent, declared the king's marriage to Catherine annulled and married Henry to Anne. The newly appointed More recognized the king's right to make Anne queen, but opposed the marriage itself on religious grounds. However, prior to the declared date of execution, fearing a possible riot from More's compatriots, Henry forestalled his subsequent torture, and limited his punishment to a mere beheading. Many beheadings would follow.

The way in which More handled the situation is notable in history because he chose certain death over a life that he believed would be in violation of morality. This makes More a fascinating character and allows us, philosophically, to analyze his position from a number of different points-of-view. From a utilitarian point-of-view, the choice by More to object to the king's proposed marriage is rather ambiguous. Within the confines of utilitarianism, an individual is bound to act such that their actions bring about the greatest amount of happiness, or pleasure, to the whole of mankind. Under strict utilitarianism, this is the only moral compass afforded those who ascribe to this form of morality. Of course, one of the most common objections to utilitarianism is that it allows for the committing of apparently heinous crimes in the name of promoting the greater good.

It is in this regard that, from a certain point-of-view, the actions of Thomas More could be considered morally justifiable through the lens of utilitarianism. If we are to imagine that More's death and subsequent martyrdom resulted in a greater level of happiness for those influenced by it and Henry VIII, then from the utilitarian standpoint we are obligated to conclude that More made the only moral choice by choosing death over serving what he believed to be an unjust reign. However, there are problems with making this conclusion, and they all stem from the basic workings of utilitarianism as a functional moral compass.

In general, most people are likely to be troubled by the consequence of utilitarianism that murder and executions are morally justified for one of two main reasons. First, there is the ever-present problem with utilitarianism that it is sometimes impossible to predict the consequences of our own actions. An individual may act in a way that he or she believes will result in the maximization of pleasure, and yet be ill-informed as to the actual results of such an action. Furthermore, there is no explicit criterion to indicate how long we should be concerned with the maximization of happiness. So, even if More believed he was going to produce more happiness by becoming a martyr than by living, it is impossible for us or him to actually determine the truth of this belief. Second, and probably the most common objection to utilitarian consequences, is the idea that the violation of an ethical law, such as murder or execution -- which may perhaps be a moral law as well -- should never occur regardless of the consequences. This introduces the idea that moral and ethical decisions may not be utterly unique to the circumstances; it is possible that rigid laws may be necessary to guide some of our actions.

Immanuel Kant, debatably, introduced one of the most coherent forms of deontology to the western tradition. Kant believes that although moral and ethical choices should take place with a utilitarian backdrop, there remain specific moral regulations that cannot be broken in order to achieve any perceived goal. This is Kant's categorical imperative: human beings can never be used as a means to an end. So even if the goal is widespread human happiness, More, as a human being, cannot be used as an instrument to bring about this happiness in such a gruesome way -- beheading. Fundamentally, there are certain actions that are morally prohibited -- like murder -- irrespective of the happiness that they might seed for society. So, Kant's version of deontology -- taken at its face value -- cannot allow for the execution of Thomas More, even if there are other moral laws, such as honesty, at stake; this is because the categorical imperative stands as the ultimate deontological guide.

However, this is not the whole story regarding Kantian ethics and suicide. There are two powerful objections to the catch-all maxim that "choosing death is morally wrong," and Kant suggests one of them. He speculates about a "great king' who carried poison that he intended to take in case of capture so that he could not be coerced into acts that would harm his country," but fails to make a final judgment on such a hypothetical situation. This is a significant example because we should assume that this king would be facing certain death regardless of his actions, and that his reason for killing himself would not be to minimize personal pain, but to maximize overall happiness.

This is a hazy situation for Kant because although the king would be using himself as a means to overall happiness, knowledge of his imminent death would almost demand that he take the poison so that others might not use him as a means to overall depravity. Essentially, Kant is forced to grapple with the moral haze that More's choice falls within; in other words, deontological moral codes can be difficult to live by once more than one maxim comes into conflict. So, although at face value, deontology tells us that More was wrong to allow himself to be killed, if his death actually saved others and prevented him from becoming a moral hypocrite, then it may still have been a justifiable action.

This dilemma facing deontology is only magnified by duty-based ethical systems, which claim that there are a set of iron-clad moral laws by which we are bound to obey over the course of our lives. Although, on the surface, utilitarianism seems to suggest that More's choice was right and deontology seems to suggest that it was wrong, absolutist moral systems are completely at a standstill on this issue. This is because, obviously, More was caught in a situation in which several common ethical laws were in conflict with one another. Preservation of life, honesty, obligation to God, obligation to one's sovereign, and obligation to one's friends were all confliction around More's decision. An absolutist system is ill-equipped to handle such a situation for two reasons. First, it can only function if one law is given precedence over another; yet, this in itself is a contradiction of the absolutist stance. And second, absolutism claims that some objective morality exists; however, with the plethora of religious and moral beliefs in the world, this appears to be at worst blatantly wrong, and at best, impossible to discern.