Compare health outcomes for the issue between the United States and a country with universal health coverage.
could, you would and would always be happy. Thus because you can't, happiness must be the natural good. On the other hand, Kant also believed one couldn't blame the rational soul for unhappiness. After all, a person's job in life is not to use reason to get out of suffering, but rather simply to use reason, period. This explanation of the natural good is important because the natural good is very different from the previously discussed moral good. The natural good is happiness whereas the moral good is good will. Kant explained that part of a person's duty is to ensure the continuation of one's life. In other words suicide is immoral. For the most part, simply staying alive has no moral value, except in the case of the individual who wants to die but continues to live without enjoying it. In that individual's case, maintaining life is a moral action. The issue of life, death and suicide is very closely tied into the idea of duty. When a person is considering suicide, Kant implies that a rational person would consider their own morals and whether or not these morals can be applied to all aspects of nature. Kant would also argue that a person is not a means, but rather an end. As individuals are ends in themselves, suicide is inherently immoral. Additionally, Kant argues that when you rationalize that you love yourself and are killing yourself out of that love, your rationalization, in that instance, is contradictory. Essentially, there is no situation where intended suicide is moral. John Stuart Mills has a different view of suicide-it's still immoral in most situations, however, immoral in a different manner. Mills promotes the idea of the greatest happiness principle, which means that even if your happiness is sacrificed you still need to live. The reality is, that if you were to kill yourself it would cause so much pain to so many people that any happiness you theoretically would have is counteracted by the sorrow of others. Of course, the topic of suicide does not fit neatly with Mill's theory. Suicide in many senses implies unhappiness with life with contradicts Mill's push for happiness and utility principle. Thus, a scholar could induce that if one were to live by Mill's theory of utility, suicide would never even come up. If a person is living by the idea of happiness as the highest pleasure and ultimate end, then a person would not be drawn to suicide because suicide does not promise happiness. Clearly, according to both Immanuel Kant's and John Stuart Mill's philosophies, suicide in almost any situation is immoral. While intentional suicide is immoral, the line of morality is blurred in situations where a person risks his or her own life for the life of another. If, for instance, a child was drowning and you were passing by, it is generally agreed within society that you are obligated to do whatever you can to save that child. This becomes a moral issue when risk is taken into consideration. Both Kant and Mill agree that if you cannot swim and your attempt to save the child would end in increased suffering, then you are morally obligated to not jump into the water. The morality of the issue comes into play when, hypothetically speaking, you do have the ability to swim and thus theoretically the ability to save the child but you both end up drowning anyway. Kant believes it's the intention that dictates morality. He would argue that although your actions may cause more suffering in the end (via sad relatives and friends mourning for both you and the child), your intentions were good and that was what mattered. Furthermore, he would support this because it >GET ANSWER