The question of morality has been discussed throughout the history of philosophy. These questions cannot be solved through simple logic due to the philosophic difficulty that they present. This is important because in the modern world there are still major issues that challenge the capacity for rational decision making. This is especially true in regards to medical ethics, in which these decisions can often result in the difference between life and death. Should doctors be given the right to end patients lives in cases in which they are going through extreme suffering and are given consent? This brings up deeper moral questions regarding the capacity to understand the limitation of objective thought in helping to determine whether a moral choice is ethical. How do we know what is moral or right? How do we know that our actions are moral? Can we have moral certainty? The idea of “rightness” and “wrongness” seems to indicate that there can be an objective understanding of these concepts. Through analysis of various moral positions presented by philosophers including Plato, Aristotle, Kant, and Descartes a better understanding of how to approach this problem can be achieved.
The question of assisted suicide has profound moral implications. The increasing capacity of technology to provide patients with a painless death has resulted the need for profound moral questions regarding the capacity of one individual to make this decision, and carry out this action, in a moral way. “The moral limits of relieving suffering at the end of life, and where our responsibilities as physicians should lie, are more frequently debated as populations age and the diseases and disabilities of old age present increasing challenges” (Van Norman 78). Should a person as an individual have the right to decide whether another person should live or die? The moral dilemma in regards to euthanasia is that it “always requires the act of another party” (Van Norman 79). This problem presents the need to delve deeper into the nature of morality and the capacity of human reasoning to establish methods for ensuring that euthanasia is carried out in a way that can be considered to be ethical. The idea of “euthanasia” “implies a “good” death, and therefore the act should meet commonly agreed criteria for “goodness”” (Van Norman 80). While Plato and Kant's moral philosophies can be seen to demonstrate that euthanasia can be carried out in a moral way, those of Aristotle and Descartes seem to indicate that there is a fundamental concern in regards to taking human life despite the reason. These positions demonstrate a variety of perspectives regarding the moral basis for ethical certainty.
These arguments come from a variety of perspectives that have been discussed at length. Plato's moral philosophy demonstrates various points that can be considered in favor of the application of physician assisted suicide. As a virtue ethics, Plato would be primarily concerned with the idea of justice. Justice can be concieved in relation to his understanding of the objective Form of justice, which must be expressed in order for an action itself to be considered just. This expression is fundamentally concerned with the extent to which the idea of justice is exemplified by the actions taken in pursuit of it. By exhibiting just actions a person can be considered just. Plato was primarily concerned with better understanding how to live a “good” life. In order to do so, it was first necessary to conceive of what is “best”. In order to achieve the best life, one must make the best choices and take part in the best actions. These actions, for Plato, could be judged on their qualities, or the objective values that they demonstrate. These qualities are fundamentally related to the conditions upon which the actions are taken. This demonstrates his objective approach to ethics, and his belief that the good, or what has value, can be understood in a rational way. Plato believed that “values are objective, naturally instantiated in the physical world; and we can really decide what is best” (Mackenzie 88). He therefore believed that there was an action that would be considered just and an action that would be considered unjust based on these principles. The level of good that an action brings is therefore a fundamental aspect of how it can be morally considered. Plato's moral theory rests on the assumption that people will naturally pursue happiness. He assumes that “moral terms of value may be identified with the values of prudence” (Mackenzie 90). Through the application of reason and logic what is moral can be objectively understood. Plato's concern for justice indicates that he would likely have a deeper view of the right to life. Pursuing the assisted death of a patient can be considered morally just if it is is able to bring happiness to the person. If dying can be shown to be “more good” than living, then he would likely agree with the patient's right to death.
Kant's moral imperative is considered to be deontological in nature. His concern with moral duty demonstrates the importance of adherence to rules or regulations in regards to established norms. In doing so, an objective understanding of moral action can be attained through the moral imperative that he has developed. In applying this imperative, it is evident that his position would likely support the right of the indivdual to decide whether or not they would like to end their own life. For Kant, his imperative is a “foundational principle of morality” (Hooker 1). This principle is based on the idea that when making a moral decision the one that the person is more likely compelled to act upon. Being compelled is primarily the result of the underlying conscious that exists in human nature. He essentially roots the moral nature of humanity in its capacity for rationality. The problem of making a moral choice regarding the life can therefore be expressed in regards to the intent of those taking action. Rather than being concerned with coming to an understanding with what is objectively right or wrong, Kant's moral position is focused evaluating the morality behind the actions themselves, or the reasons that a person had for taking them. This is based on the idea that people have the freedom to make decisions, and should therefore be considered autonomous. Instead of implying and objective moral structure, he intended to better understand the principles that people adhere to and the actions that result from them. It is therefore necessary to develop methods for “treating others as ends rather than means” (Hooker 6). In doing so, the principles of the moral imperative can help a person to make the correct choice. This choice will be naturally rooted in the potential for reason that a person exhibits. In this sense, so long as euthanasia is carried out in line with the wishes of those whose life is being taken Kant would likely agree with the decision.
Aristotle would likely disagree with these two moral theories. His moral position is fundamentally related to the idea of nature. Aristotle's teleological theories are primarily concerned with what is natural. For him, life would be considered a natural process and similarly, death should be natural as well. While he did not attribute this teleology to a god, he considered nature to be an end in itself. In this sense, the good should be directed at the processes that naturally occur. Due to the fact that death is a natural process it should be induced in only the most naturally way. In order to understand this, it is essential to understand his view of function. Aristotle believed that “assigning functions to things, even human beings, is an integral part of how we understand the world” (Hooker 11). In this sense, life is a specific function of living. For this reason, if a thing is alive it should remain alive until this life is naturally induced to become dying. The moral philosophy of Aristotle is not necessarily concerned with the rationalization of a specific action. His moral philosophy does not say that “human beings have a moral obligation to provide the world with rationality” but instead that “the function of human beings is a matter of fact” (Hooker 12). The existence of life denotes the need for life to exist. This view of teleology demonstrates the need for things to take their natural course. He believed that the natural world had its own sort of wisdom or logic. This logic, though it might be beyond the understanding of humanity, is a higher form of reason that should be respected. In this sense, he was not primarily concerned, as Plato and Kant, with demonstrating an objective claim to moral virtue. Instead, his view was that things have an existential value and should be considered as such. For this reason, he would likely argue that it is morally wrong to end a life in an unnatural way.
Similarly Descartes's philosophical position can be understood as being morally opposed to these actions. While Descartes did not make any explicit ethical arguments in his work, he did present what is known as the rule of change, which suggests that if an action cannot be taken repeatedly then it should not be taken at all. This seems to indicate that he would believe that if a life cannot be taken in a single case then it should never be taken. This would seem to indicate a position of non malfeasance. His rule of change is similar to the slippery slope argument. Once a moral decision is made one way or another it will, in the future, likely fall to that same side more often than not. In more objective forms of moral philosophy, people can potentially “engage in rationalization of their corrupt behavior by utilizing socially constructed accounts that maintain a favorable identity” (Tenbrunsel et al. 32). In this sense, the pursuit of autonomy can result in immoral actions becoming the norm. This demonstrates the underlying moral position that Descartes would likely have. “If an unethical action represents a small deviation from the standard, the change between the unethical behavior and the standard is unnoticeable, and the unethical behavior becomes the new standard” (Tenbrunsel et al. 33). This presents a strong inclination towards strict moral rules and regulations. For this reason, he would likely argue that, due to the fact that it would not be morally permissible to let all patients die, event those in pain should not be allowed to die.
These four philosophers, Plato, Kant, Aristotle, and Descartes seem to present fundamentally different positions regarding the moral certainty of physician assisted suicide. While Plato and Kant demonstrate that in some cases acting to end a life can, in fact, be considered moral, the moral philosophy of Aristotle and Descartes seems to express the opposite position, that acting in such a way goes against nature and could potentially lead to further lapses in moral reason.
Works Cited
Hooker, Brad. Kant's Normative Ethics. Richmond Journal of Philosophy. No. 1. 2002. Print.
Hooker, J.N. Three Kinds of Ethics. Carnegie Mellon University. 1996. Print.
Mackenzie, Mary Margaret. Plato's Moral Theory. Journal of Medical Ethics. No. 11. 88-91. 1985. Print.
Tenbrunsel, Anne E., Diekmann, Kristina A., Wade-Benzoni, Kimberly A., and Bazerman, Max H. The Ethical Mirage: A Temporal Explanation as to Why We Aren't as Ethical as We Think We Are. Research in Organizational Behavior. No. 8. 2012. Print.
Van Norman, Gail. The Ethics of Ending Life: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Part 1 The Language of Ending Life. CSA Bulletin. 78-82. 2012. Print.
