Should Euthanasia be legal in all of the United States? Euthanasia is defined as “the act or practice of killing someone who is very sick or injured in order to prevent any more suffering,” (Merriam-Webster, 2016). There are two different types of euthanasia: involuntary and voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is When the person who is killed has requested to be killed. Involuntary euthanasia is when a person undergoes the procedure who would be able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not want to die, or because they were not asked. The positives of euthanasia being legalized are that fatally ill people can die without suffering and pass away with their dignity. The main problems with euthanasia being legalized are
…show more content…
He explains that people should “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. In simpler terms he means that a rule can only be morally permissible if and only if it can be applied to situations by everyone, everywhere, and at all times. If the rule cannot be applied in such a way that it cannot be a universal law and therefore is incorrect and needs to be changed in order to follow the rules of the categorical …show more content…
Kant doesn’t agree with using others as a means to an end and therefore, would be against the legalization of Euthanasia. Kant would also believe that it is not morally correct to take advantage of an individual on their deathbed which would be one of the unfortunate results of legalizing euthanasia. For example, if someone were very ill and on their deathbed and didn’t give their consent for euthanasia, they might still be put to death because their family tells the doctor that the patient wants to die via the procedure. This would result in the family’s goal to have the patient killed, fulfilled and in this sense would be using the patient and the doctor by a means to an end. In this case, Kant would be against the use of Euthanasia because the patient and doctor are both being used as a means to an end. Therefore, Kant’s categorical imperative indicates that the Kantian perspective would be against the procedure of euthanasia and the legalization of
He explains that people should “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. In simpler terms he means that a rule can only be morally permissible if and only if it can be applied to situations by everyone, everywhere, and at all times. If the rule cannot be applied in such a way that it cannot be a universal law and therefore is incorrect and needs to be changed in order to follow the rules of the categorical …show more content…
Kant doesn’t agree with using others as a means to an end and therefore, would be against the legalization of Euthanasia. Kant would also believe that it is not morally correct to take advantage of an individual on their deathbed which would be one of the unfortunate results of legalizing euthanasia. For example, if someone were very ill and on their deathbed and didn’t give their consent for euthanasia, they might still be put to death because their family tells the doctor that the patient wants to die via the procedure. This would result in the family’s goal to have the patient killed, fulfilled and in this sense would be using the patient and the doctor by a means to an end. In this case, Kant would be against the use of Euthanasia because the patient and doctor are both being used as a means to an end. Therefore, Kant’s categorical imperative indicates that the Kantian perspective would be against the procedure of euthanasia and the legalization of