Introduction to Applied Ethics

Quiz 3 (Take-home quiz, 12 points in total, 12% of Final Grade), 16.02.2023

Xingkui Wang
Please submit your quiz to me by email before Feb. 25 at 11pm.

Student Name: Tazneen Hossain Tani Student ID: 221001

Please read the two articles on euthanasia in Cohen, Andrew and Christopher Wellman (ed.)
(2005), Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics (Blackwell Publishing Ltd.), and answer the
following questions.
Do not read anything online, focus on the text we have discussed. In fact, you only need to focus
on the paragraphs we have discussed in class. Quote as little as possible, write according to your
own understanding.

(1) In the article by Tooley, what are the definitions of “euthanasia”, “voluntary euthanasia”
and “non-voluntary euthanasia”? Keep your answers as short as possible, please indicate the
page number you got the definitions. (3 points)
Ans: According to Michael Tooley, “euthanasia” means any action that causes intentional killing
of a person or allowing a person to die because of the believe that he will better off dead than
alive because of certain situations. “Voluntary euthanasia” is when the person himself requests
and consents clearly for the action. “Non-voluntary euthanasia” is when the action is performed
when the person is unable to indicate such desire by himself. (Tooley, 2005, p.161)

(2) The article by Callahan examines euthanasia from the empirical perspective. Concerning
the notion of “death in dignity” in the very last paragraph, please summarize within 100
words the position of the author on this notion. Please also write your own response to this
notion. (3 points)
Ans: Daniel Callahan thinks that no death can have any kind of indignity in them. According to
him, death, however it may occur, is as normal as any other biological process and euthanasia
cannot add any extra dignity to it. The author claims that human life is so noble and a death
even in an unpleasant way cannot take away this dignity. (Callahan, 2005, p.189) Such deaths
are nothing to be ashamed of and I also agree with this notion. I think there cannot be any
indignity in any death which should be covered with an action like euthanasia. To me, death is a
universal thing that will come to everyone eventually and none of them has to face it with a fear
of indignity.
(3) The German philosopher Kant tries to establish moral principles guided by reason alone.
What we can know independent of empirical science is the principle of contradiction, through
which Kant establishes the universal principle of moral law: “I ought never to act except in
such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law.” (4:402)
Please read the following paragraph, where Kant is trying to apply this principle of universal
law to the case of suicide. What exactly is the contradiction in suicide Kant sees? Keep your
answer within 100 words. (3 points)
“Someone feels sick of life because of a series of troubles that has grown to the point
of despair, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself
whether it would not be contrary to his duty to himself to take his own life. Now he
inquires whether the maxim of his action could indeed become a universal law of
nature. His maxim, however, is: from self-love I make it my principle to shorten my
life when its longer duration threatens more troubles than it promises agreeableness.
The only further question is whether this principle of self-love could become a
universal law of nature. It is then seen at once that a nature whose law it would be to
destroy life itself by means of the same feeling whose destination is to impel toward
the furtherance of life would contradict itself and would therefore not subsist as
nature; thus that maxim could not possibly be a law of nature and, accordingly,
altogether opposes the supreme principle of all duty.” (Kant, Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals, 4:421-422)
Ans: Kant sees suicide as a contradiction of life. Because, the aim of life is to preserve itself. By
suicide, this idea is violated. The act of suicide cannot be established as a “universal law”
because it contradicts the natural law of saving life and mankind. Supporters of suicide might
say that suicide is done out of self-love, to save oneself from sufferings. But the main idea of
self-love is continuing the life to good future, not to end it. So, committing suicide terming it as
self-love makes the action contradictory. (Kant, 1785, 4:421-422)

(4) The next moral principle from Kant is the so-called humanity principle: “So act that you use
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time
as an end, never merely as a means.” (4:429)
Please check the book Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (see attachment), and read
the page 4:429 (this is the standard citation form, seen on the margin of the book), where
Kant is applying this humanity formula to the case of suicide. Please summarize within 100
words Kant’s position on suicide in this paragraph. (3 points)
Ans: Kant takes a position against suicide by explaining it with the help of “humanity-principle.”
He claims that by committing suicide, a person uses his own life as a means to achieve some
end, which violates the principle of humanity. According to him, the human life is not a mean to
fulfill desires. So, to think of suicide as a means of removing suffering and availing an eternal
peace is just against moral principles of humanity. Instead, we as rational beings should accept
all joys and sorrows of life equally. The human life should never be ended by ourselves as a
means of acquiring anything, rather it should be considered as an end itself. (Kant, 1785, 4:429)
References:
Daniel Callahan. “A Case Against Euthanasia.” In Cohen, Andrew and Christopher Heath
Wellman (ed.) (2005). Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics (p.189). Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Immanuel Kant. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. (4:421-422, 4:429)
Michael Tooley. “In Defense of Voluntary Active Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.” In Cohen,
Andrew and Christopher Heath Wellman (ed.) (2005). Contemporary Debates in Applied
Ethics (p.161). Blackwell Publishing Ltd.