Euthanasia Through Kant and Utilitarian Moral Philosophy

Introduction: The Euthanasia Debate

Euthanasia has been a hotly debated topic, on and off, for several decades. Public opinion was inflamed by the case of Dr. Kevorkian, in which the doctor claimed to be helping people exercise their right to a dignified death. Euthanasia, also termed assisted suicide, has colored moral discussions since the time of the early philosophers. In taking a position, people usually choose a philosophy based on their personal ethics. Either they hold that no one has the right to choose the time of their death, or they hold that the decision depends on the utility of the outcome. Whether a person takes the Kantian view or the utilitarian view, they have made a decision that can have consequences for others besides themselves. This essay will outline the philosophies of Kant and the Utilitarians, discuss how each tradition evaluates euthanasia, and offer an assessment of the two stances.

Philosophers generally approach a question from all angles, without prejudging the answer. Kant did not determine the justifiability of an action based solely on its emotional appeal; he believed in a direct relationship between morality and consequences grounded in universal reason. He argued that because the human mind cannot fully comprehend large, universal questions, those questions can only be answered by a set of universal moral principles. The utilitarian tradition offers a different method of determining right from wrong: the pleasure-versus-pain principle. If an action will cause pain, utilitarians hold that a person should not perform it; if it will cause pleasure, that action is to be preferred. Utilitarians do attend to consequences. For example, they would regard unprotected sex — despite the immediate pleasure involved — as a poor decision because of the possible pain of an unwanted pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease. Thus, both Kant and the Utilitarians have articulated positions with regard to euthanasia.

Kantian Ethics and Moral Imperatives

Kant stated that he did not approve of the practice of suicide. Examining his cause-and-effect argument makes this position easy to understand. Euthanasia has the intended effect of eliminating a person's suffering, but that outcome cannot be guaranteed. What if, for instance, a punishment-bearing afterlife truly exists? Kant also believed in moral absolutes — the idea that some actions, or even thoughts, are wrong because reason determines them to be so, regardless of circumstances.

Kant's moral philosophy stems from a belief in moral imperatives. People do not act morally because they want to, but because they ought to. Morals extend beyond personal desires. If an action is correct because it is the morally required action, then a person should take that course regardless of what they desire. In the case of suicide, Kant held that it was morally wrong. It does not matter that a person is in pain or that they wish to die; the morality of the question overrides every other consideration. Since killing oneself is wrong and killing another person is wrong, euthanasia is impermissible in every case.

The Utilitarian Perspective on Assisted Suicide

Utilitarian thought follows the pleasure-versus-pain principle, but even within this framework there is no simple answer to the question of euthanasia. A utilitarian argument in favor of euthanasia might proceed as follows: the person in question has no quality of life — a central consideration in utilitarian reasoning. Since they are enduring the pain of existence in whatever form that has taken, they should be allowed the merciful option of euthanasia. This would release them from suffering and deliver them to whatever state awaits after death. It is a humanistic point of view and, on its face, a merciful one.

Within the utilitarian framework, the decision would ultimately belong to the person most affected by it. That individual would need to weigh whether the pain of continued existence outweighed any reasons to remain alive. This is a deeply personal calculation, and utilitarians would generally respect the autonomy of the individual to make it — provided the consequences are carefully considered.

Conclusion: Who Should Decide?

It is often the case that the person embroiled in a fight for life is the worst person to make the decision. And if not the afflicted person, then who? Few people — least of all elected officials — want the government making these decisions. Family members may be influenced by financial considerations or by the burden of caregiving rather than by genuine concern for the patient. The patient themselves may have clouded judgment, seeing only present suffering and not the larger picture.

Kant would say that since decisions are either moral or immoral, a person should always follow the moral imperative. Euthanasia may seem correct in some instances, but given that no one knows what awaits after death, there is no certain way to make the right choice. It should therefore be left to moral law: if a person is meant to die, they will. This conclusion may feel unsatisfying to those who emphasize compassion above all else, but it has the virtue of consistency and universality — precisely the qualities that Kant prized in any moral framework.

Reference

Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2006). The Right Thing to Do: Basic Readings in Moral Philosophy (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.