Kantian Pro Euthanasia

Without a doubt, there ar forces that exist within the realms of safe and wrong. This understanding of what right and wrong is is the back bone of honourable philosophy, and its thorough aim to decipher whether or non our follow outs lie on alone side of these realms. Immanuel Kant states that these ar not the only nervets of chasteity (Lee). We moldiness excessively further ask ourselves what we ought to do, in our berth, to follow the the proper will. In question, I debate whether euthanasia is an act of true good will to determination suffering or if it is wrong to hold back a life in any circumstance.To be better good and ethical beings, and to pursue what the philosophers mention the higher good, we mustiness take upon ourselves to decease suffering in the face of imminent finish, despite our prior connections to the life or personal beliefs. origin and foremost, before addressing any claims as to what a moral satisfy is, we must first guide a basic under standing of what exactly constitutes a moral and an immoral action. In Immanuel Kants groundwork in morals, it states that an action can only be deemed moral if and only if devoid of all ulterior motive (Guthrie).With this verbalize, we can safely say, killing anyone sockd or otherwise, for any sort of gain is immoral, and therefore lacks virtue and the good will. to a greater extent often than not, we will in any case come to a conclusion that we must choose life we care too much about the ones we get along to see them leave us, or even face the inevitability of wipeout that will come soon after the immense suffering. Though as noble as saving a life whitethorn seem, this is not moral. As Kants First Categorical Imperative states, never get by individual as a means to an set aside, kind of only as a means to an end to themselves.The maxims that drive our actions, in the endeavor to swear the life of a suffering person, though however noble our intentions may be, are still only hypothetical imperatives that cater to our own egotistical need to keep the lives that we cherish. It can also be argued that ending a life to soothe the pains of seeing the ones we love suffer is also immoral. Wouldnt putting someone down so as that we wouldnt hold up to endure the pain of observance their suffering be treating them as a means to an end? This too is only for our own openhearted need to end our own woes, therefore is also considered, by the standards of Kant immoral.There are further quandaries in the topic of euthanasia, than just to do or not to do. We must always remember that to be ethical and moral beings as stated in the metaphysics of morality, we must ask ourselves what we ought to do (Guthrie). This brings us to a near moral impossibility, where we must create answers and actions that beg sui generis. In the case of euthanasia, as moral and ethical creatures we ought to act against suffering, not because we feel our love ones suffer merely to act upon categorical imperatives to end suffering for the saki of ending suffering.We must not base our actions off the possible consequences of not allowing the being to die peacefully, but by the duty we have to end suffering. In the metaphysics of morals, it is believed that the good will is ambiguous despite its intentions. Qualities of character that are considered to be good do not ensure morality, despite its intentions (Guyer). With this said we must then overlook all emotions involved and only turn over about the situation in terms of duty. If this is so, in the case of euthanasia, should we not then forgo all emotional ties and venture south for more(prenominal) moral answers?The preservation of life holds many connections to human wants, when, if morality is the aim, principals rather than wants should be our maxims. Relying on principals to drive our actions ensures that we do what we have to do not because we want to but because what we do is our duty (therefore keeping virtue and the good will untainted). But I digress an acknowledge that this theory of pure duty as an imperative is almost impossible to achieve. any observable action can be seen as conformity for the sake of conformity and/or for some sort of personal gain (Guthrie).But, as our predecessors before us stated, pure moral maxims do exist, and believing in them is a step to morality. This is not unlike the notion of God we have no physical basis of what God is, as we dont have physical notions of what pure moral intentions are, but what we do have are priors to what they are. The benefit of using Kants groundwork is that you get the action of good will without consequential thinking of the benefit or scathe that may come from it. A moral action is that of virtue, a moral duty carried out from the good will.Therefore euthanasia is moral, for our duty and motive is to end suffering for the sake of ending suffering. It is the underlying intention which decides whether our action is moral or not. The consequence only decides how beneficial our action was. As moral and ethical creatures we ought to act against suffering, not because we feel the emotional connection of watching someone you know suffer but to act upon categorical imperatives to end suffering for the sake of ending suffering. We must not end someone lses suffering to end our own pain or discomfort, but to end their suffering when all other choice besides death no longer exist for them. Works Cited Immanuel Kant. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Ed. P. Guyer and A. Wood. N. p. , 20 may 2010. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. . Guthrie, Shandon L. Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. Immanuel Kant and the Categorical Imperative. N. p. , 03 Nov. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. . Lee, Harrison. Kant Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. N. p. , 13 May 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2012. .