Individuals must never be reduced to the level that they are a convenience for the happiness of someone else. So in the case of euthanasia, a person’s inconvenience in having to look after a terminally ill relative is no good reason for that relative’s life being ended early. He believed in self-rule and not in people being used as a means to an end. People must be seen as ‘ends-in-themselves’, and it was part of everyone’s duty to abide by this principle.
Kant believed that categorical imperatives could be worked out by deciding whether the rule could become a universal law (a principle which would be to the benefit of all mankind). The moral agent must determine whether the rule would be treating people as an end or just as a means to an end and whether this system would be benefiting the whole community where good ends were achieved.
His theory has been called ‘duty for duty’s sake’ (FH Bradley). Kant never believed in breaking the rules even if by doing so, someone would benefit. For example, to tell your sister that she looks good in a dress – which does not in fact suit her – just to make her feel better about herself, would be lying, however good the motive behind it. Not lying, to Kant, is an absolute imperative and he uses a priori reasoning to come to this conclusion. These moral rules are as reliable as mathematical proofs because they derive from first principles.
Only free agents (people thinking for themselves and making their own decisions) can make moral decisions. There must be an element of choice – the choice to do good or bad. He assumed that we are all free agents. An action can only possess moral value when it is done for is own sake, for duty’s sake, and not for the pleasure of the individual or in the hope of gaining specific outcomes.
(Part B): Taken at face value, one could argue that “Categorical Imperatives allow no room for compassion in the treatment of women wanting abortions.” This is because categorical imperatives are absolute rules which cannot be altered to suit an individual. To Kant, murder is always wrong and this would be the categorical imperative. Kant would have to be persuaded that this categorical imperative cannot be said to cover every abortion.
If it could be argued that a human life does not begin at the moment of conception but, say, after 8 weeks, the categorical imperative could be said not to apply in this instance: abortion is murder when it occurs after 8 weeks’ gestation. If it could be argued that the birth of the baby could potentially kill the mother because their lives were dependent on the other, the categorical imperative could be altered to: ‘abortion is permissible if the mother’s life is at risk’. A recent example in the news of rights of life clashing (right to life is central to the issue of abortion) is the case of Mary and Jodie, the Maltese twins who were conjoined. In 2001, it was ruled that they should be separated even though this meant certain death for Mary who was dependent for life on her sister, Jodie, the stronger twin. Their Catholic parents wanted no separation even if it meant the death of both twins because to them it was wrong for Mary to be killed. The categorical imperative that you should not take human life – it is only God’s to take – was overruled because it was argued judicially that to save one life was better than lose both.
If the moral rule – to end one life to save another, for example – can be universalised then compassion can be shown in the treatment of women who want abortions. If it is decided that when the mother’s life is at risk abortion is allowed, it could be said that this is a principle everyone should practise if faced with this situation. It should be weighed up whether the best outcome would be achieved and whether it be the best rule if it became a general rule. If, in the case of abortion, the mother’s life is saved, then this could become the general rule.
An exception is not being made or an individual being given precedence over the categorical imperative, the categorical imperative itself has been re-evaluated. The scope of the categorical imperative has been narrowed. The universal, right thing to do is to kill the unborn child because it threatens the life of the mother. Compassion has been achieved although it is incidental; it does not make the action any more moral from the deontological point of view. Thus, the categorical imperative might allow abortion in some cases, but it takes no account of compassion.
Andrew Bunce