Suicide
Immanuel Kant believes that suicide is morally wrong. How would Kant argue for this position? Explain.
Immanuel Kant maintains a radical position regarding the act of committing suicide, or even attempting to take one’s own life. To Kant, those who commit suicide or even attempt it are lesser than other human beings. Kant cites the superiority of the human race as the reason for his opposition to suicide.
Moreover, human character is superior to that of animals. When one commits suicide, he or she compares human character to that of an animal or an object. Kant says that the wellbeing of a human being is supreme, thus suicide is an abominable act.
From your understanding of Utilitarianism, would a utilitarian regard suicide as morally wrong? Explain.
Utilitarianism stresses that it is appropriate when an action benefits the greatest number of individuals rather than one person. This means that it is wrong when a person commits suicide, and causes suffering to other people, whether physical or emotional.
Logical considerations make suicide a good thing if the person involved does not have any connection to humanity. It is obvious that the death of a person through suicide causes sadness and even grief to the people close to the individual. Consequently, utilitarianism regards suicide an inappropriate solution.
Would Paley regard suicide as morally wrong? Explain.
William Paley argues on the issue of suicide the same way the utilitarian philosophy approaches the issue. Paley says that if a person determines that his or her life is useless to both the society and oneself, it is prudent to commit suicide in order to extinguish the suffering of both parties.
However, he observes that it is impossible for any person to determine the value of a human being to a society. In addition, Paley postulates that suicide is a good option if the sorrow the individual involved is experiencing is more than the sorrow that will be caused by his or her death. Again, he observes that it is not within human capability to accurately determine the degree of sorrow, particularly in the future. Finally, Paley determines that suicide cannot be justified under any circumstances.
What do you think? Explain.
Suicide would be a plausible solution to some seemingly insolvent problems if it results in a better situation after its occurrence. No one knows the consequences of suicide for the person who has committed it. This uncertainty is an adequate reason to regard suicide as morally unacceptable. After a person commits suicide, relatives and other close people often suffer lifelong trauma. While the suffering of one person can be neutralized by suicide, the event marks the beginning of a difficult mental and emotional experience for many others. Thus, in my opinion, suicide is morally wrong.
Religion and Ethics
Do we (you and I) have a moral obligation not to take God’s name in vain?
Paley, in his philosophical work, analyzes each of the Ten Commandments. He calls for logical interpretation of the laws. Regarding the third commandment, he refers to the teachings of Christ of Nazareth, who cautions people against swearing upon God’s name, or in reference to any object that relates to God. Consequently, it becomes a duty for everyone not to swear by God’s name according to Paley.
Immanuel Kant developed the philosophy of categorical imperative. He postulated that there should be a reason behind every action. In his deontological approach to morals, he found it appropriate to apply logic to every action rather than apply unquestioned moral doctrines. Kant does not find a reason why one should not use God’s name in vain. To him, it is not your obligation to observe rules that are not based on pure reason.
John Stuart Mill developed the rules that govern the philosophy of utilitarianism. In his argument, Mill said that the best action is that which benefits most people. For the benefit of the majority to exist, there must be logical reasoning. This separates the philosophy of utilitarianism from religious teachings. The reason behind this is that religion is not based on logic, but on beliefs. Consequently, Stuart Mill would not have found it an obligation not to take the Lord’s name in vain.
Do we have an obligation to follow Rule 8?
William Paley was a supporter of principles of ethics similar to utilitarianism. In all his works, he lobbied for justice for the poor. He at one time declared that he was of the opinion that the poor had the right to steal from the few rich in order to survive. This indicates that he would not have supported the punishment that the code of Hammurabi dictated for a poor person who had committed an offence of stealing from the rich.
The deontological approach adopted by Immanuel Kant emphasizes on the supremacy of goodwill. The rule number eight in the code of Hammurabi seems to have been made for the purpose of revenge and intimidation of the poor. In this essence, Immanuel Kant would have dismissed it as lacking justifiable goodwill to make it worth the sacrifice.
If John Stuart Mill was to consider the rule number eight in the code of the Hammurabi, he would have found it to be in favor of the royalty and the rich. In this regard, the rule would not have been worth practicing in Mill’s opinion since the rich and the royalty are not the majority.
What is your opinion? Explain.
In my opinion it is retrogressive for any society to carry out excessive punishment as in the code of Hammurabi. Although stealing may present a problem, it is not logical to kill a thief or take the little wealth he or she has. This is also not good for the majority.