Kant’s Categorical Imperative
and Euthanasia
Michael Lacewing
enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk
Deontology
Morality is a matter of duty.
Whether something is right or wrong doesn’t
depend on its consequences. Actions are
right or wrong in themselves.
Different answers to how we can discover
our duties; Kant says ‘pure reason’
Actions are defined by intentions, e.g. the
difference between murder and killing in
self-defence.
Kant’s Categorical Imperative
Morality is meant to guide our actions.
We act on maxims: principle of action, what
we intend.
Morality is universal, the same for everyone.
so “Act only on that maxim through which
you can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law”.
E.g. stealing: If we could all just help
ourselves to whatever we wanted, the idea
of ‘owning’ things would disappear; but then
no one would be able to steal.
Imperatives
An imperative is just a command.
A hypothetical imperative is a
command that presupposes some
further goal or end.
A categorical imperative is not
hypothetical. It is irrational and
immoral not to obey it.
Happiness and reason
Only reason and happiness motivate us.
Morality motivates us, so must be one
of these.
It can’t be happiness, since what
makes people happy differs, and
happiness can be good or bad.
It is reason: morality is universal and
categorical - so is reason.
Respecting humanity
‘Act in such a way that you always treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in
the person of any other, never simply as a
means, but always at the same time as an
end’
To treat someone’s humanity simply as a
means, and not also as an end, is to treat
the person in a way that undermines their
power of making a rational choice
themselves.
Euthanasia
Involuntary, non-voluntary, voluntary
Kant: people who commit suicide destroy
their rationality to avoid pain - i.e. they treat it
as a means to an end; so euthanasia (to
avoid pain) is wrong
What if you ask for euthanasia because you
will lose your rationality, e.g. Alzheimer’s? Do
we respect their dignity by giving them
euthanasia?
Active v. passive euthanasia
Act utilitarianism: all that matters is suffering
Deontology: killing someone is different from
letting them die. We shouldn’t kill people, but
are not always required to prevent them from
doing.
Can we kill people in euthanasia? Sanctity of
life says no, and many doctors are reluctant
Objections
Any action can be justified, as long as
we phrase the maxim cleverly.
– But the test is what our maxim really is.
Conflict of duties
– Duties never really conflict, but knowing
how to apply the CI requires judgment.
Strange results: ‘I shall never sell, but
only buy’ is immoral!