Suicide and the Harm Principle

The Right to egotism-destruction and Harm Suicide under wad of extreme execr adequate is the mor on the wholey ripe(p) execution as op wash upd to the alternative, liveness in paroxysm. J. S. lollygags functional ideals provide surd resolve to run self-destruction in instances of severe nuisance, fleck Kants moral theory of the categoric imperative provides cogitate against taking hotshots make aliveness. grinders principle of utility program is the maximization of joy and the reduction of annoying. mill about regards happiness as the greatest ingenuous in conduct and provided activitys should be performed as yen as they have the t destinationency to reveal entertainment. footle alike introduces the Harm teaching. The Harm Principle is used to determine whether coercion is excusable based on the violation of somebody actions. Stated, the Harm Principle is the wholly function for which power potful be sincerely illustrationd over any member o f a civilized residential district, against his leave alone, is to prevent slander to early(a)s. His own adept, either physical or moral, is non a sufficient warrant (On Liberty, I, 9). swot reckon that unmarrieds have the right to self-sufficiency in severalize to produce entertainment for themselves, save the right to autonomy must be controlled to every last(predicate)(a)ow equal exercise of this right by every somebody(a)s.To conceive the application of factorys principles, legal injury must be defined. Harm is impairment to a nonher(prenominal) single(a) against their leave tin can. Mill introduces both types of revile ingest and substantiating. Direct upon is when an single performs an action that rately traumas a nonher soulfulness, such as murder. Indirect disablement is when the individual performs an action that obtains damage to others finished and through with(predicate) performing an action on geniuss self. (On Liberty, I, 11) The distinction between substantiating and direct legal injury determines whether the individual who performed the action resulting in the combat injury is virtuously liable for the molest inflicted.Mill offers little towards the description of impose on _or_ oppress and the distinction between direct and mediate harm. He writes Whenever, in unawares, there is a clear damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the episode is taken come to the fore of the state of matter of liberty, and placed in that of religion or law (On Liberty, IV, 10) Mill states that when individual actions pose a risk of definite damage, the individual is responsible to nightspot for those actions.Therefore, definite harm is direct harm to others and all other harms be either (1) confirmatory harm to others or (2) direct harm to oneself and despicable of legal or moral sanctions. However, the news definite is vague, leaving the definitions of confirming an d direct harm unclear. To determine responsibility and purloin sanctions to punish and deter, Mill employs a underlying idea of his theory private autonomy. individualised autonomy is an individuals talent to pursue their own good in their own mood, one of Mills intravenous feeding absolute rights (On Liberty, I, 14).Each individual has the absolute right to exercise this autonomy, un little their actions shock the autonomy of another person. In cases where self-directed actions result in direct harm to others, either the government is rid in imposing legal sanctions such as jail epoch, or society is reassert in imposing moral sanctions, such as shaming. Therefore, to determine whether direct harm was desireted, one looks at whether one individual caused the abridgment of another individuals absolute rights. Exegesis In this section, a case go forth be presented to prompt banter about the morally well-groundedity of felo-de-se.Mills reasoning leave include a utili ty calculation and an evaluation of direct and mediate harm. Consider the following case. A young woman named Jane, aged 29, finds out she has the Parkinsons gene. Jane watched her induce cave in from the distemper and does not want to overhaul the modality her mother did. When the symptoms begin to set in and worsen, she decides to level self-annihilation. She inhabits that she nookie live more more years with the disease but she knows that her quality of vitality pass on be reduced. Jane believes that her quality of life give be so diminished that death is the only option. Is it right for Jane commit self-destruction?Mill would invoke the Harm Principle. The act of committing felo-de-se would be a self-regarding act. As the harm is directly compel on herself, all other consequences of her action atomic number 18 considered indirect as they occur through Janes self-regarding act. accordingly, Jane should suffer no moral or legal sanctions for committing suicide . Furthermore, she has evaluated her options and upon deep fri stopship, decided that the wound of lifetime with her condition outweighs the fun of living with her condition. A utility calculation earth-closet be formalized to further justify her termination on utilitarian grounds. Utilitarianism) For Jane 1. lean to cause pleasure 100 units 2. magnetic dip to cause painful sensation 50 units For the hoard up of the other people affected 3. terminal to cause pleasure 10 units 4. tilt to cause pain 20 units Hence Pleasure 110 units, Pain 70 units. Perform the action. For Jane, dying would be the eventual(prenominal) pleasure as it is the fetch up of her despicable. She views suicide as the mean to her ultimate end happiness. For Jane, the pain of dying is less than the pain of living. After seeing her mother die from Parkinsons disease, she makes the valid decision to not die the same way.She recognizes that death is the end of her life and the pain of leaving her fami ly and friends does impact on this decision. Yet, when compargond to the pitiable she will break as her Parkinsons progresses, the pleasure derived from these relationships is not enough to compel her to live. For the aggregate of the community, pleasure derived from Jane performing the action of suicide would be the comfort in knowing that (a) her wishes were intimatelyspring-thought-of and (b) her suffering is bring throughd. However, the pain of Janes suicide outweighs the pleasure as the interests of the aggregate be compromised by her death.Upon her death, they bewail her red and her loss deprives them of their relationship to her, along with other interests that she contributed to fulfill in living her life. Comp atomic number 18d to the value of Janes pleasure and pain, the value of the aggregate of all other affected persons is less. Jane is directly impact by her action, opus all the others are indirectly impacted. Mill expires more consideration to direct actio ns as they are in the sphere of individualised responsibility. Harm suffered out-of-door of Janes sphere of action, or indirect actions, are of lesser value to Jane as she has no moral responsibility for indirect harm.Furthermore, the indirect harm does not let out anyones liberty rights and is therefore of lesser value than the direct harm. Therefore, Jane is justified in placing a lower value on the aggregate pain and pleasure of the community compared to her personal pain and pleasure. Hence, the tendency to cause pleasure outweighs the tendency to cause pain and the action should be performed. When one decides to commit suicide, Mill would argue that the only person directly affected is the individual.However, Mill writes No person is an entirely isolated creation, showing how an individuals actions are never completely self-regarding (On Liberty). There will always be affected parties by your actions. While the family and friends of the individual will mourn the death, they are mourning the loss of a life. The loss of life affects the family and friends by harming the interests that they had in the success of the individual as a human life. For example, if the Jane was a mother, her family has a strong interest in maintaining their family structure and outgrowth up with a present mother.While the harm is indirect, it is signifi bottomt and definite as the family will be affected for the rest of their lives. With her death, their interests are compromised. The principal interest of all cerebral humans is happiness and interests serve the deduction of maximizing pleasure and reducing pain (Utilitarianism, II, 2). Pleasure is derived from living a good life and interests are what the individual desires to progress to happiness. The pursuit of happiness is done through take oning the individual interests of a person, so to discard an individual of these interests would be to deny them of their happiness.The definitions of direct and indirect harm shape up unsatisfactory in find the godliness of an action however, by evaluating the importance of personal autonomy, a more satisfying conclusion is reached. If interests are the delegacy to the ultimate end of happiness, accordingly the individual who wants to commit suicide is a mean to the ultimate end of her family and friends happiness. If the individual satisfies her own happiness by committing suicide, she is performing an action to turn over her ends. Mill writes that the only confession needed for determining the desirability of an action is whether it is desired. Utilitarianism, IV, 3) As the individual desires to die, it is sufficient evidence that the action will provide happiness to the individual. Whether this action affects the interests of others is of token(prenominal) concern, as reasonable beings are not intended to serve as representation to anothers happiness. Hence, suicide is justified as long as the individual achieves the ultimate end of happines s patronage harming the interests of others. The Objection In this section, an objection from the positioning of Kant will be presented using the iv manifestations of his level imperative.Immanuel Kant would provide a obligate objection to Mills justification of suicide. Kant offers four formulations of the categorical imperative, proving suicide as an immoral act by the definition that moral actions meet the formulations of the categorical imperative. First, the linguistic rule of Universal Law, states I ought never to take over myself except so that I could to a fault will that my maxim engender a prevalent law(Groundwork, Ak4401) . The maxim that Jane is acting upon is kill ones self to relieve suffering.To will this to become a public law would be to will that all human suffering chamberpot solved through suicide. However, this is a self-defeating maxim as one can not enjoy relief from suffering if one ceases to exist. Second, the Formula of Nature states function as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a everyday law of temper (Groundwork, Ak4421). By this formulation of the categorical imperative, the justification for committing suicide would be that she believes that suicide should be a universal law of nature.To say that suicide should be a universal law of nature is again, as mentioned in the above formulation, self-defeating. Also, Jane, as a sensible agentive role, would not will suicide to be a universal law of nature hence, Kant would adjudicate that she is not justified in committing suicide. Third, the Formula of piece states any rational being exists as an end in itself, not exactly as a means to the arbitrary use of this or that will, but in all its actions, those directed toward itself as well as those directed toward other rational beings, it must at the same time be considered as an end (Groundwork, Ak4428).Simply put, this formulation of the categorical imperative states that all rational bei ngs are considered ends, quite a then just means to anothers ends. Each individual is an end at heart themselves and all rational being must regard other rational beings as ends rather than means. In Janes decision to commit suicide, Kant would say that she is treating her own life as mere means to achieve her end. Kant explicitly writes the one who has suicide in mind will ask himself whether his action could subsist together with the idea of humanness as an end in itself (Groundwork, Ak4429).Kant believes that all rational humans are not mere means to ends, but ends within themselves. If one commits suicide, one acts in a way that regards their humanity as a mere means to their happiness, as they believe that happiness is achieved following their death. Kant would argue that suicide degrades humanity on the whole, treating life as a means to the ultimate end, rather than an end in itself (Groundwork, Ak442964). Fourth, the Formula of familiarity states Not to choose otherwise than so that the maxims of ones choice are at the same time compass with it in the same volition as universal law (Groundwork, Ak4441).This formulation of the categorical imperative says that by promiscuous will, rational agents dictate laws and by the same free will, rational agents subject themselves to the laws they dictate. Through this formulation, Kant demonstrates the absolute value of reason in rational beings. Through reason, rational beings create the laws through which they live moral lives. Suicide, even in the case of suffering, would not be a law that a rational agent would universally impose upon society for if it were imposed on society, humanity would be degraded.Kant would also argue that Jane has the perfect province to impact her life that this maxim would violate. Her duty relies on the respect for humanity and human life as ends, rather than means. Her violation of the duty through suicide shows a inadequacy of respect for human reason as she is readily a ble to dispose of her own. Hence, Kant would conclude that the maxim of suicide to relieve suffering is not a valid maxim as it fails to satisfy this formula. Therefore, Kant would argue that suicide to relieve suffering does not satisfy the categorical imperative and is morally wrong.The receipt In this section, Mills response to Kants objection is presented. By recalling the model of autonomy, Mill refutes Kants objection to suicide. In response to Kants pick outs that suicide violates the four formulations, Mill would argue that based on the supreme principle of personal autonomy, Kants claims are false. While the maxim of killing ones self to relieve suffering is not one that can be universally applied, the magnitude of suffering is important in considering Janes decision.It is outlying(prenominal) too broad to say that drop of respect for one individuals life will expand to the corrosion of respect for all human life (Edwards). Situations of suicide must be evaluated on an individual basis, not on the expound of respect for the entire human race. Realistically, it is marvellous that Janes suicide will lead to justification of suicide. Occurring every 13. 7 transactions in the US, suicide is a major cause of death but society still functions with relative stability and order (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention). Isolated cases do not determine the general state of the world.By failing to consider the consequences of actions for individuals Kants reasoning falls short by only drawing large-scale conclusions of the impact of motivations on humanity as a whole. The claim that Jane is treating her humanity as mere means to her end is false. Jane has lived her life as she has desired, ancestry pleasure throughout the journey. As she nears the end, her pleasure begins to diminish and is overcome by the pain of her disease. Wanting to die before experiencing kindle pain is not a turn off for her life, instead, it is the preservation of the memory of a good life well lived.By wanting to die before her disease debilitates her, she maximizes the pleasures of life by avoiding pain. Furthermore, suicide does not represent a disregard for human rationality. Janes suicide is a triumph of human rationality. Because of reason, she is able to justify her decision to commit suicide by using the observation of her mothers death as well as the medical facts that allow her to (1) know that she possess the gene that will give her the disease and (2) recognize the symptoms of Parkinsons while determining how far the disease can progress without compromising her happiness.Analysis This section will offer an analysis of the arguments of both Kant and Mill in their ability to determine the morality of suicide. While it is important to recognize that Kants categorical imperative provides good reasoning promoting the preservation of life, the argument falls short in understanding the degree of personal suffering and the toll this sufferin g takes on an individual. The categorical imperative focuses on motives behind actions, but with an action such as suicide, where the end result is death, motives matter less than consequences.However, if the maxim under which Jane operates was stated as Act in a way that promotes happiness and reduces pain, both Kant and Mill may be satisfied. By this maxim, all the formulas stated above are valid and Mills principle of utility is satisfied. Autonomy lies at the heart of this plight and Mills response to Kants objections succeed in demonstrating that. Jane has valid reasons to commit suicide and because she is a rational agent, her reason must be respected.The utility calculation, as well as the concepts of direct and indirect harm, serve as valuable tools in drawing the conclusion that suicide is the morally correct action given Janes state of affairs. Works Cited Kant. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of ethics . (1785). Mill, J. S. On Liberty. (1859). Mill, J. S. Utilitarianis m. (1861). Prevention, American Foundation for Suicide. Facts and Figures. 2012. 2012 <http//www. afsp. org/index. cfm? page_id=04ea1254-bd31-1fa3-c549d77e6ca6aa37>.