DR RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY

SEMINAR

PAPER

THEORY :THE RIGHT

:IMMANUEL

KANTS

TO DIE

MORAL

LAW AND MORALITY

MADE
UNDER
SUBMITTED BY:
Dr
Anurag

Prem

ABLE

GUIDANCE
Kumar

OF:
Gautam

Assistant
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)
DR.RMLNLU,
Semester- 9th Roll No. 29

Professor
Lucknow

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This seminar paper would not have been possible without the
guidance and the help of several individuals who in one way or
another contributed and extended their valuable assistance in the
preparation and completion of this study.
First of all, I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude in
thanking Dr Prem K. Gautam, Assistant Professor and faculty
member of our University, for his able guidance and useful
suggestions, which helped me in completing the project work, in
time.
Secondly, I give a warm thanks to the Library Staff of our
University Library for consistently helping me in finding out the
relevant material for this project work.
Finally, yet importantly, I would like to express my heartfelt
thanks to my beloved parents for their blessings, my friends and
classmates

for

their

help

and

wishes

for

the

successful

completion of this project work.

-Anurag

Contents
1.0 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY..........................................................................................................4
2.0 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM..................................................................................................4
3.0 HYPOTHESIS...........................................................................................................................5
4.0 RESEACRH METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................5
5.0 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................5
5.1 UNDERLYING SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND MORAL ISSUES.........................................7
5.1.1 Sanctity of Life................................................................................................................7
5.1.2 Quality of Life.................................................................................................................8
5.1.3 The Real, the Ideal, the Actual........................................................................................9
5.1.4 LEGAL..........................................................................................................................10
6.0 Kants Theory..........................................................................................................................15
6.1 Kant: The basics...................................................................................................................16
6.1.1 Reason and happiness....................................................................................................17
6.1.2 Morality and happiness.................................................................................................17
6.1.3 Morality and reason.......................................................................................................17
6.1.4 Respecting humanity....................................................................................................18
6. 2 KANT: AGAINST SUICIDE..............................................................................................19

6.2.1 Against Common Arguments for Suicide.........................................................................19

7.0 Euthanasia vis--vis Kant........................................................................................................20
7.1 Active v. Passive euthanasia.................................................................................................21
8.0 Objections to the Categorical Imperative...............................................................................22
9. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................24

1.0 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

This paper tries to set the issue of voluntary euthanasia in a philosophical framework by showing
how some of the main philosophical theory of Immanuel Kant, about morality would deal with
the topic. Not many philosophers have discussed euthanasia as such until recently, although it is
now a popular topic. What has always been discussed, however, is suicide, which raises much
the same moral problems as voluntary euthanasia. The moral similarity between voluntary
euthanasia and suicide enables us to make a reasonable guess about what some of the great
philosophers would say about voluntary euthanasia.
In this country patients does not have a legal right to refuse treatment even if death will be the
result, though doctors may make it difficult for them to exercise this right. But it is illegal for a
doctor actively to bring about the death of his patient at the patient's request, in the way that is
now decriminalised in India. In this paper I shall concentrate on the controversial issues: whether
it is morally permissible for a doctor actively to bring about the death of his patient at the
patient's request and whether the law should be altered to permit this from the perspective of
Kant.

2.0 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Whole controversy revolves around death with dignity. But dignity is a very complex concept. I
shall not attempt to give a definition of dignity here. Instead I shall list aspects of dignity which
seem to be important when death with dignity is discussed, recognising that some of these
aspects will be more important to some people, others to others. Dignity involves: not being
4

dependent on other people or on things; self-control and autonomy; privacy; the maintenance of
one's own standards, of all kinds; self-esteem. A death with dignity is a death which enables the
dying person to retain the elements of dignity which he or she values.

3.0 HYPOTHESIS
Many believe that Immanuel Kant would oppose suicide in every circumstance. However, the
intricacies of Kantian ethics may lead to the surprising conclusion that some individuals have the
moral obligation to take their own lives

4.0 RESEACRH METHODOLOGY

Doctrinal research methodology will be applied in the preparation of under taken seminar paper
research paper. Doctrinal or library based research is the most common methodology employed
by those undertaking research work. This type of research is also known as pure theoretical
research. It consists of a simple research directed at findings of problem after in depth analysis of
available data in the form of polices.

5.0 INTRODUCTION
German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1824) considers two common justifications of
suicide, and rejects them both. First, some may argue that suicide is permissible as a matter of
freedom, so long as it does not violate the rights of others. In response Kant says selfpreservation is our highest duty to ourselves and we may treat our body as we please, so long as
our actions arise from motives of self-preservation. Second, some have argued that suicide is
sometimes virtuous. For example, in Roman history, Cato was a symbol of resistance against
Caesar, found he could no longer resist Caesar; to continue living a compromised life would
disillusion advocates of freedom.1 However, Kant argues, this is the only example of this sort and
1 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html; 19 Oct 2015]

thus cannot be used as a general rule in defense of suicide. Kant's principal argument against
suicide is that people are entrusted with their lives, which have a uniquely inherent value. By
killing oneself, a person dispenses with his humanity and makes himself into a thing to be treated
like a beast.2
A general religious one is that god created life and only god has the right to take it away, that no
man should have the legal power to take away life for whatever reason. The religious belief is
extremely rational one: it can be backed up by proper realistic points like who decides when a
man is supposed to die? To paraphrase another general point raised in all Euthanasia debates: If
the person had to die, wouldnt he be already dead? Why should anyone be granted the authority
to take away someone elses life? A brief reading of the Hindu Ideology would point out the
concept of Karma. Karma basically means all the acts done by the person and the significance of
those actions in ones life. In a talk with a Baba once, at a family function, he pointed out to me
that Karma is the sole reason a person stays alive and reaps or suffers his fate.3
Euthanasia and its close cousin assisted dying represent extremely problematic areas for the
criminal law, as the recent guidelines issue around assisted suicide testifies. The effect of these
guidelines is to make no official change in the law, yet to make it clear as a matter of practice
that where the law on its face has been broken, there will be no prosecution where the defendant
was motivated by good moral reasons. On a legal realist vision of law, the law has changed, but
on a positivistic reading it has not. What we have in fact is a rather complex and potentially
troublesome juxtaposition of legal rule and administrative discretion. This balances strong social,
political and moral claims in a society where there is no consensus as to the rights and wrongs of
helping someone to die.4 In this context, the legal realist can say I told you so, and the legal
positivist can cluck disapprovingly, but both miss the point, which is that the laws messy mixing
of messages in a pragmatic compromise reflects the moral impasse in a way that gives something
2 Alan W. Norrie, Legal Form and Moral Judgment: The Problem of Euthanasia. www.ssrn.com
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577163; 19 Oct. 2015 ]

3. Elizabeth Telfer, Philosophical approaches to the dilemma of death with dignity.

[http://www.euthanasia.cc/telfer.html; 19 Oct 2015]

to everyone. Thus the pro-life lobby can say that the law has not changed and no symbolic
succour has been given to the pro-euthanasia view, while the latter can claim to have made
headway in chipping away at the monolithic view that assisting death is impermissible. The right
to lifers will be legal positivists on the matter whereas the pro-choice constituency will be legal
realists. A deeper view of the matter would be to say that moral complexity is reflected in the
peculiar legal complex of form and substance that the legal categories of responsibility actively
permit, and which enables a deeply conflicted moral issue to be managed or finessed through the
legal architectonic of the criminal laws general part.
It is such a complex vision of the criminal laws general principles of responsibility that I wish to
develop in this paper, in order to apply it generally to questions surrounding euthanasia. In
thinking about the criminal laws architectonic, I will be bringing to bear my previous analysis of
the role of formalisation on the categories of criminal law, a development that begins to occur in
the early nineteenth century, and which sets up a constant tension in the law between formal and
substantive approaches to criminal responsibility. I will be looking at how the legal categories
finesse or mediate the result in terms of reflecting an underlying moral judgment.5

5.1 UNDERLYING SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND MORAL ISSUES

Before coming to the law itself, I want to expand discussion of the moral issues concerning
euthanasia, about which there is no consent in modern Indian society (and indeed in many
4 Id.

5 Supra at 3

western societies, though compare the situation in Holland). As already stated, this expresses
itself as a conflict between the right to life and the right to choose death views, with the
former associated with the moral claim that the sanctity of life is paramount and the latter with
the view that quality of life issues are equally, or perhaps more, important.6
5.1.1 Sanctity of Life

The sanctity of life view affirms the value of human life in itself in a way that trumps even
claims to self-determination. Human life just is a morally foundational good, and is to be
protected in all situations. The best that can be said for euthanasia is that it may be permitted in
its passive form (letting die) where a person is dying and life surrenders itself up to a natural
process. In one form of the argument, there is a validation of human being qua species or
relational being, such that there is an important sense in which a persons life is not just her own,
but also belongs to the group of which s/he is a part. An individual life has value beyond what
the individual perceives it to be. There seems to me to be something important in this, and with it
a ground for social intervention, altruism and care to assist others in living. Of course, at the
same time, such an approach can have morally counter-intuitive results: people who really want
and need to die are kept alive at great pain to themselves. When that happens, the argument for
sanctity of life surely becomes somewhat sanctimonious.7

6 Kant On Suicide, PhilosophyNow: Magzine. [https://philosophynow.org/issues/61/Kant_On_Suicide;

19 Oct 2015]

7Michael Lacewing, Kants Categorical Imperative and euthanasia.

[http://www.alevelphilosophy.co.uk/handouts_ethics/KantEuthanasia.pdf; 19 Oct. 2015]

In another form, I think the sanctity of life argument draws strength from what one can call the
possibility of dystopian futures. There is a concern that once we move away from sanctity of life
claims, we open the door to various dangerous possibilities. If life loses its sanctity for the
terminally ill, it may also lose it for other groups where quality of life might be regarded as
questionable, the long term depressed, the mentally and physically handicapped, and so on.
Against this, the quality of life stance will say that where freedom of choice pertains, there is a
check on authoritarian and fascist direction of programmes of compulsory euthanasia, but much
would then depend on what is meant by freedom of choice and how it is ascertained. Such a view
is reflected in recent government concerns that where assisted suicide is formally permitted, it
will be the poor who will choose to die, for their life chances as elderly or infirm will be much
less than the those of the wealthy.8Suffice it to say that there are good moral reasons of either a
direct or an indirect kind for supporting a sanctity of life view.
5.1.2 Quality of Life

There are also, of course, good reasons for supporting a quality of life view. Despite what I have
just said about the conditionality of choice, the possibility of choosing the time and place of
ones own death appears to be an important aspect of what it means to be a human being. 9 The
possibility of human agency is premised on the notion of human freedom, and the idea of
freedom implies a progression of possible states in which freedom exists. We can start with a
8 Supra at 5.

9 Kant On Suicide, PhilosophyNow: Magzine. [https://philosophynow.org/issues/61/Kant_On_Suicide;

19 Oct 2015]

simple negative liberty, a freedom to be left alone with ones life, but from there project out to a
positive freedom to become what we have it within ourselves to be. Such freedom then entails
further conceptions of autonomy, emancipation and flourishing, insofar as human life reflects the
ontological potentialities in human being. The ability to choose ones own death reflects many of
these aspects of human freedom, from the simple sense that one should be left alone to do what
one likes with ones life to the more complex sense that an autonomous life would include
amongst its components control over ones death, and then on to the sense - that is surely there in
the term euthanasia (a good death) - that a flourishing life is one in which one is genuinely able
to register the time to go. A good life means a good death too.10
5.1.3 The Real, the Ideal, the Actual

All this I take to provide morally valid reasons for permitting forms of euthanasia, both active
and passive, but it should be noted that the different forms of freedom are stated abstractly as
ontological possibilities for human beings, and they do not indicate that in modern western
societies anything like these possibilities for freedom are available in the here and now, certainly
not for all people. Nor may they be available in future versions of our society in which declining
possibilities for a good life and death seem likely. The arguments concerning dystopian futures
10 Alan W. Norrie, Legal Form and Moral Judgment: The Problem of Euthanasia. www.ssrn.com
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577163 ]

10

and social inequalities retain their validity, and especially the latter in thinking about euthanasia
today. Where poverty is real and life chances are affected, to speak of death as the logical
corollary of human autonomy or flourishing looks like the worst kind of moral idealism. That is
certainly a danger, and it is a danger for large numbers of people, but it does not counter the
morally realist hypothesis that human beings can under certain conditions embrace their deaths
as part of a good life. What it does is set up a relationship between the morally real (what is
ontologically true for human being), the morally ideal (what is true for human beings, seen as a
potential that is not instantiated in a given society), and the morally actual (what is actually
possible under given social conditions, in contrast to what becomes an unachieved ideal state).11
In practice, I think this relationship between the morally real, the ideal and the actual is seen in
the tension between different kinds of death. Consider the deaths of individuals with terminal
illnesses who have chosen to die, who plan their deaths, and who are able to pay to travel to the
Dignitas clinic in Zurich with their close family. Everything has a measured, respectful, reflexive
character. This kind of death for a few, however, should be contrasted with the concern that
legalising assisted suicide would mean that many people who are poor, who are leading lives
with little quality, and feel themselves to be a burden on their families would then be pressured
directly or indirectly to choose to die. Accordingly, in all these circumstances, one might say
that even if each human being has the real potential to live a good life and die a good death, that
does not lead to the conclusion that the law should be changed to permit this to happen. Just as
one has to balance different arguments around sanctity and quality of life, so one has to measure
ethically different practical outcomes.12 At bottom, I think there is a question about the
relationship between individual human flourishing and collective human flourishing which
balances off the argument about the value to individuals of a good death, and comes out in
practice as a position in favour of the sanctity of life. There is a moral sense that we cannot
individually be allowed to flourish until such time as we all are able to do so, and this is reflected
in the tension between sanctity and quality of life arguments in society today. But id this is so,
11 Supra 4

12 Joshua Beckler , Kantian Ethics: A Support for Euthanasia with Extreme Dementia.
[https://www.cedarville.edu/personal/sullivan/cedarethics/papers/2012/beckler.pdf]

11

there is also surely a moral conviction that those who really can decide to die at a time of their
choosing should be allowed to do so. There is a major and a minor premise here, and they are in
contradiction with each other.
5.1.4 LEGAL
The Law Commission of India in August 2012 in its 241st Report15 analysed Passive
Euthanasia. The Law Commission was asked to look in to the Case of Euthanasia after the case
of Aruna Ramamchandra Shanbaug v. Union of India where the Supreme Court after much
consideration held Passive Euthanasia to be legal.13
Passive euthanasia, otherwise known as negative euthanasia, involves withholding of medical
treatment or withholding life support system for continuance of life e.g., withholding of
antibiotic where without doing it, the patient is likely to die or removing the heartlung machine
from a patient in coma. Passive euthanasia is legal even without legislation provided certain
conditions and safeguards are maintained. The core point of distinction between active and
passive euthanasia as noted by Supreme Court is that in active euthanasia, something is done to
end the patients life while in passive euthanasia, something is not done that would have
preserved the patients life. To quote the words of learned Judge in Arunas case, in passive
euthanasia, the doctors are not actively killing anyone; they are simply not saving him. The
Court graphically said while we usually applaud someone who saves another persons life, we
do not normally condemn someone for failing to do so.14
Active euthanasia on the other hand involves taking specific steps such as injecting the patient
with a lethal substance which causes the person to go in deep sleep in a few seconds and the
person dies painlessly in sleep, thus it amounts to killing a person by a positive act in order to
end suffering of a person in a state of terminal illness. It is considered to be a crime all over the
world (irrespective of the will of the patient) except where permitted by legislation. In India it is
illegal and is a crime under Section 302 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This was not
13 Sharma, Sanjana, Euthanasia and Ethics. Available at
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2265358or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2265358

14 Id.

12

the first time that Euthanasia was considered in the Indian Legal history. In its 196th Report the
Law Commission did considered Euthanasia, but clarified emphatically that it wasnt Euthanasia
that they were dealing with, it stated:
The Commission was not dealing with euthanasia or assisted suicide which are unlawful but
the Commission was dealing with a different matter, i.e., withholding life-support measures to
patients terminally ill; and universally in all countries, such withdrawal is treated as lawful.
Time and again, it was pointed out by the Commission that withdrawal of life support to patients
is very much different from euthanasia and assisted suicide.15
In the 17th Law Commission Report21, the Commission clearly made a distinguishing between
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide and withdrawal of Life Support Measures. It states that:
In this Report, we are of the view that Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide must continue to be
offences under our law. The scope of the inquiry is, therefore, confined to examining the various
legal concepts applicable to withdrawal of life support measures and to suggest the manner and
circumstances in which the medical profession could take decisions for withdrawal of life
support if it was in the best interests of the patient.16
However Passive Euthanasia has always been supported by the Law Commission Reports, in the
196th Report, it was supported for both Incompetent and Competent Patients Which brings us to
the Case of Aruna Ramachandran Shanbaug v. Union of India, the 2011 landmark Supreme Court
judgement is a much publicised verdict probably as much as, the story of Aruna Ramachandran
Shanbaug herself. 17
The case was filed as a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It is stated in
the writ petition that the petitioner Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug was a staff Nurse working in
15 Supra 13.

16 id

17 Aruna Ramachandran Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 454.

13

King Edward Memorial Hospital, Parel, Mumbai. On the evening of 27th November, 1973 she
was attacked by a sweeper in the hospital who wrapped a dog chain around her neck and yanked
her back with it. He tried to rape her but finding that she was menstruating, he sodomized her. To
immobilize her during this act he twisted the chain around her neck. The next day on 28th
November, 1973 at 7.45 a.m. a cleaner found her lying on the floor with blood all over in an
unconscious condition.
It was alleged that due to strangulation by the dog chain the supply of oxygen to the brain
stopped and the brain got damaged. It was alleged that the Neurologist in the Hospital found that
she had plantars' extensor, which indicates damage to the cortex of the brain along with severe
brain injury. 18
From the date of the Incident in 1976 to the date of verdict in 2011, 36 years have expired since
the incident and now Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug is about 60 years of age. It was stated she is
featherweight, and her brittle bones could break if her hands or legs are awkwardly caught, even
accidentally, under her lighter body. She has stopped menstruating and her skin is now like
papier mache' stretched over a skeleton. She is prone to bed sores. Her wrists are twisted
inwards. Her teeth had decayed causing her immense pain. She can only be given mashed food,
on which she survives. It was furhter alleged that Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug is in a persistent
negetative state (p.v.s.) and virtually a dead person and has no state of awareness, and her brain
is virtually dead. She can neither see, nor hear anything nor can she express herself or
communicate food is put in her mouth, she is not able to chew or taste any food. She is not even
aware that food has been put in her mouth. She is not able to swallow any liquid food, which
shows that the food goes down on its own and not because of any effort on her part. The process
of digestion goes on in this way as the mashed food passes through her system. However, Aruna
is virtually a skeleton. Her excreta and the urine is discharged on the bed itself. Once in a while
she is cleaned up but in a short while again she goes back into the same sub-human condition.
Judged by any parameter, Aruna cannot be said to be a living person and it is only on account of
mashed food which is put into her mouth that there is a facade of life which is totally devoid of
any human element. It is alleged that there is not the slightest possibility of any improvement in
18 id

14

her condition and her body lies on the bed in the KEM Hospital, Mumbai like a dead animal, and
this has been the position for the last 36 years. The prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents
be directed to stop feeding Aruna, and let her die peacefully.19
While the Union of India contended that the Nursing Ward and all attendants of Ms. Shanbaug
are extremely proud of their achievement of looking after her and that she has an able and
willing staff to take care of her.
They all are very proud of their achievement of taking such a good care of their bed- ridden
colleague and feel very strongly that they want to continue to take care of her in the same manner
till she succumbs naturally. They do not feel that Ms. Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug is living a
painful and miserable life.20
As per the medical report submitted by the Medical Team constituted for the purposes of
investigation by the Supreme Court gave a detailed analysis of her condition, to summarise, Ms.
Shanbaug has developed non-progressive but irreversible brain damage. In Ms. Aruna's case, she
has had irreversible brain damage for 37 years, making her perhaps the longest survivor in this
situation. She meets most of the criteria for being in a permanent vegetative state (PVS). PVS is
defined as a clinical condition of unawareness of self and environment in which the patient
breathes spontaneously, has a stable circulation and shows cycles of eye closure and opening
which may simulate sleep and waking. Further, her dementia has not progressed and has
remained stable for last many years and it is likely to remain same over next many years. At
present there is no treatment available for the brain damage she has sustained.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution, any writ petition filed has to prove violation of a
fundamental right. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab21 it was held that Right to Life enshrined
19 Id.

20 Id

21 Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab 1996 (2) SCC 648

15

under Article 21 does not include the Right to Die. However, Supreme Court in Vikram Deo
Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar observed: 22
We live in an age when this Court has demonstrated, while interpreting Article 21 of the
Constitution, that every person is entitled to a quality of life consistent with his human
personality. The right to live with human dignity is the fundamental right of every Indian
citizen.
Thereby creating a legal conundrum for the Court, the decided to give a detailed explanation for
the distinction between Passive and Active Euthanasia, including examining the Airedale NHS
Trust v. Bland28, a judgment delivered by the House of Lords in 1993. Anthony Bland aged
about 17 went to the Hillsborough Ground on 15th April 1989 to support the Liverpool Football
Club. In the course of the disaster which occurred on that day, his lungs were crushed and
punctured and the supply to his brain was interrupted. As a result, he suffered catastrophic and
irreversible damage to the higher centres of the brain. For three years, he was in a condition
known as `persistent vegetative state (PVS). In this state of affairs the medical men in charge of
Anthony Bland case took the view, which was supported by his parents that no useful purpose
would be served by continuing medical care, and that artificial feeding and other measures aimed
at prolonging his existence should be stopped. Since however, there was a doubt as to whether
this course might constitute a criminal offence, the hospital authorities sought a declaration from
the British High Court to resolve these doubt. The broad issued raised before the House of Lords
in the Airedale case was In what circumstances, if ever, can those having a duty to feed an
invalid lawfully stop doing so?
All the Judges in the House of Lords unanimously agreed to the following:
That it is in the best interests of the community at large that Anthony Bland's life should now
end. The doctors have done all they can. Nothing will be gained by going on and much will be
lost. The distress of the family will get steadily worse. The strain on the devotion of a medical
staff charged with the care of a patient whose condition will never improve, who may live for
years and who does not even recognize that he is being cared for, will continue to mount. The
22 Vikram Deo Singh Tomar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1988 SC 1782.

16

large resources of skill, labour and money now being devoted to Anthony Bland might in the
opinion of many be more fruitfully employed in improving the condition of other patients, who if
treated may have useful, healthy and enjoyable lives for years to come.
Airedale (1993) decided by the House of Lords has been followed in a number of cases in U.K.,
and the law is now fairly well settled that in the case of incompetent patients, if the doctors act
on the basis of informed medical opinion, and withdraw the artificial life support system if it is in
the patient's best interest, the said act cannot be regarded as a crime.
But the Supreme Court held in the Arunas Case that firstly, decision has to be taken to
discontinue life support either by the parents or the spouse or other close relatives, or in the
absence of any of them, such a decision can be taken even by a person or a body of persons
acting as a next friend. It can also be taken by the doctors attending the patient. However, the
decision should be taken bona fide in the best interest of the patient. In the present case, we have
already noted that Aruna Shanbaug's parents are dead and other close relatives are not interested
in her ever since she had the unfortunate assault on her and that it is the KEM hospital staff, who
have been amazingly caring for her day and night for so many long years, who really are her next
friends, and not Ms. Pinky Virani who has only visited her on few occasions and written a book.

6.0 Kants Theory

Kant argues that our duties are determined bypure practical reason

In judging whether an action is right or wrong, deontology emphasises the agents intention. This
is because it understands actions to be determined by intentions. We may ask What type of
17

action is this? Is this the same action as that?. For example, a person may kill someone else.
conventional description of the action is a killing. But not all killings are the same type of
action, morally speaking. If the person intended to kill someone, i.e. that is what they wanted to
bring about, that is very different than if the killing was accidental or if the person was only
intending to defend themselves against an attack.23

6.1 Kant: The basics

Immanuel Kant argued that moral principles could be derived from practical reason alone. To
understand his claim, we need to put some premises in place. First, Kant believed that, as rational
animals, we dont just do things, we make choices. Whenever we make a choice, we act on a
maxim. Maxims are Kants version of intentions. They are our personal principles that guide our
choices, e.g. to have as much fun as possible, to marry only someone I truly love. All our
choices have some maxim or other behind them, which explains our reasons for that particular
choice. Second, morality is a set of laws rules, principles that are the same for everyone and
that apply to everyone. If this is true, it must be possible that everyone could act morally (even if
it is very unlikely that they will). 24 From this, Kant devises his Categorical Imperative, for
working out whether acting on a particular maxim is right or wrong. Suppose you want a gift to
take to a party, but you cant afford it, so you steal it from the shop. Your maxim is something
like: To steal something I want if I cant afford it. This can only be the right thing to do if
everyone could do it. The Categorical Imperative is Act only on that maxim through which you
can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. It is important to notice that
Kant does not claim that an action is wrong because we wouldnt like the consequences if
everyone did it. His test is whether we could choose for our personal maxim to be a universal
law. His test is about what it is possible to choose, not what we like to choose.
Here is an example. If we could all just help ourselves to whatever we wanted, the idea of
owning things would disappear. But if I dont own something like the things in my shop
you cant really steal them from me. You can only steal something if it isnt yours. Stealing
23 Supra 10.

24 Supra 14

18

assumes that people own things, and people can only own things if they dont all go around
helping themselves whenever they want. So it is logically impossible for everyone to steal things.
And so stealing the gift is wrong.25

6.1.1 Reason and happiness

An imperative is just a command. The command is categorical because we cant take it or leave
it. It is not just morally wrong to disobey, Kant thought, it is also irrational. It must be possible
for all rational animals to choose to behave rationally. So choosing to behave in a way that it is
impossible for everyone to follow is irrational. So we must obey the Categorical Imperative
because it is irrational not to. So it is our duty only to act on maxims that can be universalized.
Reason both determines what our duties are and gives us the means to discover what our duties
are.26

25 id

26 Supra 9

19

By why should morality be about behaving rationally? Whatever else we think about morality, it
is supposed to guide our actions. It can only do this if we can be motivated by morality. He
argues that there are, ultimately, only two sources of motivation: happiness and reason.
6.1.2 Morality and happiness

Morality cant be based on happiness, Kant argues, for two reasons. First, what makes people
happy differs from person to person. If morality was about happiness, then different people
would be motivated to act in different ways. But morality is the same for everyone. A utilitarian
would object that morality can be the same for everyone and be about happiness if morality is
about creating the greatest happiness. Kant would respond that everyone elses happiness does
not necessarily motivate me, only my own happiness does. 27 And, in fact, utilitarians usually
appealto reason here themselves, saying that caring about other peoples happiness is rational or
reasonable. Second, happiness is not always morally good. If someone is made happy by hurting
others, this is no reason to say that it is morally good to hurt others. In fact, their happiness is
morally bad. So we evaluate happiness by morality. That means the standard of morality must be
independent of happiness.28
6.1.3 Morality and reason

Since morality cant be based on happiness, then it must be based on reason. This is confirmed
by the characteristics that morality and rationality share. Morality is universal, the same for
everyone; so is reason, says Kant. Morality and rationality are categorical; the demands to be
rational and moral dont stop applying to you even if you dont care about them. Neither morality
nor rationality depend on what we want. Finally, we intuitively think that morality applies to all
and only rational beings, not just human beings. In Douglas Adams The Hitch-hikers Guide to
the Galaxy, Arthur Dent protests to the Vogons, aliens who are going to destroy the Earth, that
what they are doing is immoral. Morality doesnt apply to beings that cant make rational
choices, such as dogs and cats (pets misbehave, they dont act morally wrongly).29
27 Supra 3

28 Alan W. Norrie, Legal Form and Moral Judgment: The Problem of Euthanasia. www.ssrn.com
[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577163 ]

20

6.1.4 Respecting humanity

Kant gave an alternative formulation of the Categorical Imperative, known as the Formula of
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. Kant
does not say we cannot use people as a means, but that we cant use them simply as a means. We
rely on other people in many ways as means to achieve our own ends, e.g. people serving me in a
shop are a means to getting what I want to buy. What is important, says Kant, is that I also
respect their humanity as an end in itself. By humanity, Kant means our practical rationality,
our ability to rationally determine which ends to adopt and pursue. To treat someones 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. 30 Coercing someone or lying to them, so not
allowing them to make an informed choice, are examples. The ability to make free, rational
choices gives human beings dignity. It is also the ground of their absolute value. Everything else
only has value because it is adopted by a being with humanity, Kant argues. In one sense, which
limits what we may do, to treat humanity as an end is to respect it, which forms the basis of
various perfect duties, including not coercing others, not lying, and not stealing. In another, more
positive sense, treating humanity as an end means adopting it as an end to be pursued. On this
basis, we seek to encourage the ability to make rational and worthwhile choices in ourselves and
others. This sense is the basis of various imperfect duties, including helping other people and
developing ones mind.

6. 2 KANT: AGAINST SUICIDE

29 id

30 Kant On Suicide, PhilosophyNow: Magzine. [https://philosophynow.org/issues/61/Kant_On_Suicide]

21

6.2.1 Against Common Arguments for Suicide

Suicide can be regarded in various lights; it might be held to be reprehensible, or permissible, or
even heroic. In the first place we have the specious view that suicide can be allowed and
tolerated. Its advocates argue thus. So long as he does not violate the proprietary rights of others,
man is a free agent. With regard to his body there are various things he can properly do; he can
have a boil lanced or a limb amputated, and disregard a scar; he is, in fact, free to do whatever he
may consider useful and advisable. If then he comes to the conclusion that the most useful and
advisable thing that he can do is to put an end to his life, why should he not be entitled to do so?
Why not, if he sees that he can no longer go on living and that he will be ridding himself of
misfortune, torment and disgrace? To be sure he robs himself of a full life, but he escapes once
and for all from calamity and misfortune. The argument sounds most plausible. But let us, itself.
We may treat our body as we please, provided our motives are those of self preservation.31
If, for instance, his foot is a hindrance to life, a man might have it amputated. To preserve his
person he has the right of disposal over his body. But in taking his life he does not preserve his
person; he disposes of his person and not of its attendant circumstances; he robs himself of his
person. This is contrary to the highest duty we have towards ourselves, for it annuls the condition
of all other duties; it goes beyond the limits of the use of free will, for this use is possible only
through the existence of the Subject.
31 id

22

There is another set of considerations that make suicide seem plausible. A man might findhimself
so placed that he can continue living only under circumstances which deprive life of all value; in
which he can no longer live conformably to virtue and prudence, so that he must from noble
motives put an end to his life. The advocates of this view quote in support of it the example of
Cato. Cato knew that the entire Roman nation relied upon him in their resistance to Caesar, but
he found that he could not prevent himself from falling into Caesars hands. What was he to do?
If he, the champion of freedom, submitted, everyone would say, If Cato himself submits, what
else can we do? If, on the other hand, he killed himself, his death might spur on the Romans to
fight to the bitter end in defense of their freedom. So he killed himself. He thought that it was
necessary for him to die.32
He thought that if he could not go on living as Cato, he could not go on living at all. It must
certainly be admitted that in a case such as this, where suicide is a virtue, appearances are in its
favor. But this is the only example that has given the world the opportunity of defending suicide.
It is the only example of its kind and there has been no similar case since. Lucretia also killed
herself, but on grounds of modesty and in a fury of vengeance. It is obviously our duty to
preserve our honor, particularly in relation to the opposite sex, for whom it is a merit; but we
must endeavor to save our honor only to this extent, that we ought not to surrender it for selfish
and lustful purposes. To do what Lucretia did is to adopt a remedy which is not at our disposal; it
would have been better had she defended her honor unto death; that would not have been suicide
and would have been right; for it is no suicide to risk ones life.33

7.0 Euthanasia vis--vis Kant

Involuntary euthanasia is euthanasia when the patient does not want to die. Nonvoluntary
euthanasia is euthanasia when the patient has not expressed their choice, for example if they are
32 id

33 Supra 28

23

too young to express choices, or they cant express choices now e.g. because of being in a
coma or mentally impaired through senile dementia and did not express their choices earlier.34

Voluntary euthanasia is euthanasia when the patient wants to die and has expressed this choice.
Voluntary euthanasia is the most controversial, and so well focus on it. Kant argued that people
who commit suicide destroy their rationality in service to something else pain. And our
rationality is more valuable than anything else. So suicide and asking for euthanasia do not show
respect for our own rationality; they do not treat it as an end in itself. But this doesnt deal with
cases in which the reason why someone requests euthanasia is because they are about to lose
their rational faculties (as in advanced Alzheimers disease) or cases in which someone doesnt
have any rational faculties (where children are born without a complete brain).35We may agree
that rationality is what bestows dignity on human beings, and we must respect peoples dignity.
Therefore, a human being who may lose their dignity and their rationality through illness and
pain may legitimately request euthanasia. We respect and protect their dignity by helping them
die in circumstances of their own choosing. This is one of the most powerful arguments for
voluntary euthanasia. But deontologists dont argue that we should always respect someones
choice when what they want is morally wrong; sometimes it is morally right to prevent them
34 Joshua Beckler , Kantian Ethics: A Support for Euthanasia with Extreme Dementia.
[https://www.cedarville.edu/personal/sullivan/cedarethics/papers/2012/beckler.pdf]

35 id

24

from doing what they want. So voluntary euthanasia could still be wrong if wanting to die is
morally wrong.36

7.1 Active v. Passive euthanasia

Active euthanasia is when the patient is killed, for instance by a lethal injection. Passive
euthanasia is when the patient is allowed to die, for instance by withholding treatment for the
disease that then kills them. If voluntary euthanasia is ever morally permissible, is there a moral
difference between active and passive euthanasia? An act utilitarian may argue not. In both cases,
the person dies. All that matters is that they dont suffer. However, other theories argue there is.
Not killing someone is related to the virtue and duties of justice. Justice requires that we respect
people, their choices and rights. Not letting someone die is related to the virtue and duties of
charity. Charity requires that we help other peoples lives go well. For example, people all over
36id

25

the world are dying from hunger and disease. It is difficult to argue that because you did not give
more to charity you have done something as bad as if you had actually killed them yourself.37
However, there are some cases in which letting someone die is equivalent to killing them, e.g.
when you have a duty to provide food or medicine to someone and you do not. A parent who
didnt give their child food would be guilty of murder. In such a case, both justice and charity
require the same thing, and so there is no practical difference between killing and letting
someone die. Is there a practical difference in the case of euthanasia? Normally, killing is
forbidden by justice as it violates the persons choice; but in voluntary euthanasia, respecting the
persons choice means killing them. But some deontologists argue that we have a duty not to kill
human beings, even if the person who dies requests it. This is one interpretation of the idea of the
sanctity of life, that we must respect someones right to life even when they want to die. These
deontologists may allow passive euthanasia, but not active euthanasia.38
Many doctors think that the idea of administering lethal injections goes against the idea and
duties of practicing medicine. However, in addition to the duty to protect the lives of their
patients, doctors also have the duty to do what is best for their patients, including relieving pain.
One way of trying to respect both duties at once is to allow the patient to die while doing
everything possible to ensure their death is painless. In cases in which passive euthanasia is
painful, giving large doses of painkillers is permissible, even if this actually causes them to die
sooner. (So to intend to kill someone is always wrong; but the intention here is to relieve pain.)
But does the duty to protect life involve the duty to prolong life for as long as possible, even if
the quality of life is very poor? If so, then active euthanasia is permitted if doctors must always
do what is best for their patient, and death can be what is best. At this point, virtue theory may
appeal to virtues such as mercy and compassion to permit euthanasia.39
37 Supra 23

38 id

39 Supra at 2.

26

8.0 Objections to the Categorical Imperative

Is the Categorical Imperative a flawed test? First, couldnt any action be justified, as long as we
phrase the maxim cleverly? In stealing the gift, I could claim that my maxim is To steal gifts
from large shops and when there are seven letters in my name (Michael). Universalizing this
maxim, only people with seven letters in their name can steal only gifts and only from large
shops. The case would apply so rarely that there would be no general breakdown in the concept
of private property. So it would be perfectly possible for this law to apply to everyone. Kants
response is that his theory is concerned with my actual maxim, not some made-up one. It is not
actually part of my choice that my name has seven letters, or perhaps even that it is a gift I steal
(some people do, however, have principles about only stealing from large shops). If I am honest
with myself, I have to admit that it is a question of my taking what I want when I cant afford it.
For Kants test to work, we must be honest with ourselves about what our maxims are. Second,
Kants test delivers some strange results. Say I am a hard-working shop-assistant, who hates the
work. One happy Saturday I win the lottery, and I vow never to sell anything t anyone again, but
only ever to buy. This is perhaps eccentric, but it doesnt seem morally wrong.40
But it cannot be universalized. If no one ever sold things, how could anyone buy them? It is
logically impossible, which makes it wrong according to Kants test. So perhaps it is not always
wrong to do things which requires other people do something different. Third, how are we to
resolve an apparent conflict of duties? Like most deontologists, Kant holds that a real conflict of
duties can never occur. If there appears to be a conflict, we have misunderstood what at least one
duty requires of us. He argued that it takes considerable judgment to know how to apply the
Categorical Imperative in real life. Choices in life are difficult and unclear, a moral theory should
not pretend to provide all the answers.41 A moral life calls for insight and judgment, not
knowledge of some philosophical theory. Fourth, utilitarians object that deontology is irrational.
If it is my duty not to murder, for instance, this must be because there is something bad or wrong
about murder. But then if murder is bad, surely we should try to ensure that there are as few
40 Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) by Immanuel Kant.

41
id
27

murders as possible. If I know that unless I kill someone deliberately, many people will die, how
can I justify not killing them by appealing to duty? Surely it is only my duty not to kill because
death is bad. So I should prevent more deaths. To insist that I dont do anything wrong seems a
perverse obsession with keeping my hands clean.
Utilitarianism understands all practical reasoning reasoning about what to do as means-end
reasoning: it is rational to do whatever brings about a good end. Deontology rejects this view.
First, it may claim that we do not have a duty to maximize what is good. The utilitarian thinks it
is just obvious that if something is good, more of it is better, and we ought to do what is better.
There is no further argument to be given. The deontologist disagrees. Second, deontology offers
an alternative theory of practical reasoning, which rejects the means-end reasoning of
utilitarianism.

9. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Kantian ethics mandates suicide for individuals who can foresee the full onset of
some diseases like dementia. Though suicide in most circumstances is a malevolent act to the
self or others, it is an act of beneficence to both the self and others in the context of approaching
dementia. In the same way, physicians should have permission to use euthanasia towards those
with severe dementia as an act of beneficence towards both the patients family and society as a
whole.
Thus, Many believe that Immanuel Kant would oppose suicide in every circumstance. However,
the intricacies of Kantian ethics may lead to the surprising conclusion that some individuals have
the moral obligation to take their own lives. Kantian reasoning to argue that patients approaching
extreme dementia like diseases, have the moral obligation to commit suicide before they lose
their rationality and personhood. I will then argue that logically, it follows that physicians should
administer euthanasia to patients with severe dementia who have lost their ability to freely
choose suicide.

28

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Following are the sources which shall be refered to:
PRIMARY SOURCES:
1. Immanuel

Kant,

Groundwork

for

the

Metaphysics

of

Morals

(1785)

2. Aruna Swanubag v. Union of India.

SECONDARY SOURCES:

1. Alan W. Norrie, Legal Form and Moral Judgment: The Problem of Euthanasia.
www.ssrn.com [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577163 ]
2. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, [http://plato.stanford.edu/index.html ]
3. Kant
On
Suicide,
PhilosophyNow:
Magzine.
[https://philosophynow.org/issues/61/Kant_On_Suicide]
4. Sharma,
Sanjana,
Euthanasia
and
Ethics.

Available

at

SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2265358or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2265358

29

5. Michael

Lacewing,

Kants

Categorical

Imperative

and

euthanasia.

[http://www.alevelphilosophy.co.uk/handouts_ethics/KantEuthanasia.pdf]
6.
James
Fieser,
Applied
Ethics:
A

Sourcebook.

[https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/6-euthanasia.htm]
7. Joshua Beckler , Kantian Ethics: A Support for Euthanasia with Extreme Dementia.
[https://www.cedarville.edu/personal/sullivan/cedarethics/papers/2012/beckler.pdf]

8.

Elizabeth Telfer, Philosophical approaches to the dilemma of death with dignity.

[http://www.euthanasia.cc/telfer.html]

30