Peer Response 3

All postings (including replies to peers) are expected to be thought out, proofread for mechanical, grammatical, and spelling accuracy, and to advance the discussion in an intelligent and meaningful way (i.e., saying something like “I really enjoyed what you had to say” will not count). You are also encouraged to do outside research and quote from that as well.

Discuss with your peers:

Consider whether your peers have provided different analyses and/or responses than you did (or would, if it’s a different topic). If it is, raise some questions about their view that could lead to a good discussion about your differences. If your responses were similar, think about a problem or worry that could be raised about your views, and discuss with your peer how to address it.

PEERS RESPONSE:

Categorical imperative reminds me much of the Golden rule. It is one's action or reaction in response to something much like the reasoning of others' reactions in the same manner. The humanity formula reads,"… Act that you treat humans, whether your person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never as a means." (Thames, 2018 4.2) In my understanding of this quote, we essentially carry the same tone, whether within ourselves or when in the persona of another when we internalize. When applying the categorical imperative approach with suicide, it can be thought of as an individual believes the world would be better off without them alive and, in turn, would now be the same as saying, well the world would be better off without another person as well. Kant refers to this as giving oneself "instrumental value," which he sees as immoral, as they'd be justifying the killing of another's life. (Kant, 2008)

Utilitarians would disagree with said logic as the death of one individual would not result in the greater good of the majority. However, if the end resulted in the greater good of the majority, then a "sacrificed" individual for this example would be allowed.

I feel as if I agree and disagree with Kant. I can make sense of his stance on suicide, although I cannot agree with the "false promises"/ lying aspect as it seems a little strict. I do not believe every case is always so black and white as in many instances in life; we will be forced to compromise based on the given view of the utilitarian motive in said situations.

Reference

Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). Bridgepoint Education.

Kant, I. (2008). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). In J. Bennett (Ed. & Trans.), Early Modern Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf (Original work published 1785)

-Megan