Ethics

Kants position on self killing is somewhat controversial as it is open to various interpretations by different scholars. His use of concepts like categorical imperative, rational thought and dignity of the personhood present a prima facie case against suicide and euthanasia (Kant 59, 1964). Any action that emanated from rational thought and was intended to promote moral good is according to Kant, ethical. Persons seeking to end their lives because of unbearable suffering are contemplating amoral actions since they are motivated to treat the self as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.  A detailed analysis of Kants philosophy shows that he while he was against suicide and euthanasia , he would have permitted it in certain instances provided the act stemmed from rational thought and was for the moral good of society.

Categorical imperative demands that mankind abides by the moral standards set by society (Kant 66, 1964). Any behavior that goes contrary to these social norms is therefore immoral and wrong. The sanctity of life cannot be treated as something to be dispensed with as though it were a commodity traded on the open market. The finality of death makes it all the more precious and life should be safeguarded at all times and preserved by any means possible. Thus, the golden rule that states man should not kill should be sufficient reason to prohibit suicide or euthanasia. Kant does not provide an exception for terminally ill persons to escape their sufferings by opting to die from self afflicted acts as this would result in a conditionally valuable end (Vrong 651).  He concludes that such acts benefit self and devalue human dignity by placing a very low value on the sanctity of life.

Kant goes further to denounce suicide on the basis that it destroys an individuals capacity for rational thought. He considered rational thought to be the most important factor that contributes to human existence and differentiates mankind from all other forms of life (Vrong 655).

He makes a reasonable argument that is absurd for the mind to promote its own destruction by advocating for suicide or euthanasia. Such thinking would be irrational and immoral because not only does it go against the categorical imperative, it eliminates the very being of self by killing the mind and all rational thought. This argument reinforces Kants opposition to people in pain opting for death to avoid suffering since dying will deprive them of the faculty to think rationally.

With regard to dignity, Kants position was that the ability to make rational decisions is what gives the human beings their intrinsic value (Kant 346, 1998) Suicide and euthanasia remove the ability for one to make rational thoughts and thus rob mankind of their dignity. This invariably cheapens human existence and contradicts the categorical imperative that posits human life is sacrosanct.

However, suicide and euthanasia would seem permissible to Kant provided the raison dtre fulfilled the threshold he considered important to the furtherance of morality and human dignity. If an act of self or assisted killing brought happiness to the greater good of society, according to Kants philosophy, this act would be permissible (Kant 337, 1998). Kants example of a man bitten and attacked by a rabid dog explains this concept succinctly. Fearing that he was about to lose his mind from the incurable disease, the man prefers to kill himself to protect others from contracting rabies from him. This case fulfills the categorical imperative that one should be mindful if others at all times and thus from a morality viewpoint, self killing in such a case is perfectly permissible. It should be noted that the primary consideration was not ending the personal discomfort the infected man felt but rather, his concern for fellow man that prompted his decision.

Following up on the same reasoning, one could make an impassioned case that a sex addict living with the Aids disease would be justified in taking his or her own life to prevent others from getting infected during sexual escapades. The failure to control this addiction means that the addict would invariably make irrational decisions to have sex with unsuspecting partners. This puts such partners at   risk of being infected with the virus and ultimately developing full blown Aids.  The threshold in this case would be fulfilled since, when overcome by the addiction, the addict is unable to make rational decisions. Kant believed that the ability to be rational was an important aspect of human dignity and when the ability to make rational decisions was absent life was not worth living (Gregor 63).

Consequently, addictions without cures could be the basis for people to commit suicide provided such decisions promoted the good of mankind rather than personal comforts.

Euthanasia as a remedy for people losing their mental faculties may be permissible since the rational factor was in jeopardy. Living vegetables demean human dignity as these persons are unable to support themselves or live a meaningful life (Gregor 57). Kant would have made exemptions in such cases and allowed self or assisted suicide to preserve human dignity. The issue of sanctity of life would be secondary since irrationality would become the hallmark of mentally incapacitated persons which belies the justification for living. Kants philosophy vaguely suggests those who are allowed to carry out euthanasia since the action must be carried out by someone ascribing to the established thresholds.
Those administering the lethal drug must be convinced that their actions will advance the cause of mankind and not their personal wishes. If any happiness is to be derived from the action, it must be because the world will be a better place and not because the person stands to gain financially or materially from the death.  Kant would oppose euthanasia even when the person seeking it does so selflessly provided it is established that the executor has a personal interest.

In conclusion, Kants philosophy opposes suicide and euthanasia since such actions run counter to categorical imperative, the preservation of rational thought and the dignity of mankind. However, his theories would permit self killing in certain instances where the predominant factor was the good of society and not the pursuit of conditionally valuable ends. Even in instances where euthanasia would be permitted, Kant insists that the action be carried out by people with pure intentions rather than by those with vested interests. The overriding factor in deciding when to permit or oppose self killing is whether the action is carried out for the benefit of mankind or for selfish purposes. Should an action fail to meet these thresholds, Kant would not support it.