By refracting all action through the optical prism of the categorical imperative, Kant is insisting that human beings be intrinsically wanted (ends unto themselves) and should never be deliberately legal injuryed or allowed to come to harm. If it were powerful to allow one human being to die in time when that death could be prevented, then it would always be right to allow human beings to die in such instances. As this is clearly not the case, a Kantian would object more or less strenuously to the opinion that we enjoy an actual right to die.
The cerebration that human beings and the human body in general be intrinsically valuable is not specific to Kant. Traditional barter theory, such as that espoused by German philosopher Samuel Pufendorf also embraced this idea that we have specific duties of the body that mandate that we not harm ourselves deliberately. This assertion condemns a range of harms, spanning from gluttony and drunkenness to self-destruction (The Internet cyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2001).
Such theories as these, which produce a list of duties for all per
Smith, Adam. (1759). The surmisal of object lesson Sentiments (Excerpts). Retrieved on April 10, 2004 at: www.engl.virginia.edu/enec981/10smithC1.html
For rough duty theorists (like W.D. Ross), recognizing the humans of foundational duties means also that we must recognize that on nigh occasions, these duties will conflict. When moral obligations appear to pull in black eye ways, we must appeal to our strongest duty. These foundational duties, regarded as star(predicate) facie duties, can ordinarily be listed but are not thought to pee-pee a fixed hierarchical scheme of values. In differentwise words, there is no single action-guiding principle (as with Kant's categorical imperative) that can be appealed to on all matters.
The hierarchy of duties is fluid, and not reducible to one moral precept. One must arrange prima facie duties according to the intrinsic goods from which they are thought to arise; some duties, like duties of beneficence regarding others, will arise from the intrinsic chastity of pleasure (beneficence toward others will yield more pleasure) (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2001).
As Adam Smith wrote in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", "As we have no immediate experience of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the dash in which they are affected, but by conceiving what we ourselves should feel in a like situation" (Smith, 1759, p. 48). This is the crux of the issue o'er the right to die, as it is precisely our ability to identify with the emotions of others that is at stake. Where Durable Medical Power of Attorney is given, and express wishes are adequately made, so the task of determining the "manner" in which our dying loved ones are "affected" becomes less difficult. It would be, in Smithian terms, unsympathetic to deny them their feelings in such instances, and force them to bang when they would rather die. Indeed, in the modern-day hospital, the right to die may be as valid and as valuable as the right to live.
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment