What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in that debate?
Next, articulate and then evaluate the ethical positions using Kantian ethics (that is, the categorical imperative) relative to the long standing debate (that is your topic chosen in the week three assignment).
Finally, create a complete annotated bibliography for 5 academic scholarly sources. You will annotate each source. The sources should be relevant to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
Include the following:
Publication details
Annotation (a detailed reading of the source)
Each annotation section should include the following:
Summarize key points and identify key terms (using quotation marks, and citing a page in parentheses).
Describe the controversies or "problems" raised by the articles.
State whether you agree or disagree and give reasons.
Locate one or two quotations to be used in the final research project.
Evaluate the ways in which this article is important and has helped you focus your understanding.
Evaluation using Kantian Ethics (Categorical Imperative)
Immanuel Kant’s ethical system, based on the Categorical Imperative (CI), is a deontological framework that evaluates the morality of an action based on the rule (maxim) that guides it, not the consequences.
Articulation of Ethical Positions
The debate can be articulated through two formulations of the CI:
Formula of Universal Law (F-UL): "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Formula of Humanity (F-H): "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
| Ethical Position | Maxim | Kantian Evaluation (CI) |
| Supporting PAS/Euthanasia | Maxim: "When life involves irremediable suffering, it is permissible to end it at the request of a competent individual." | Evaluation: Under F-H, proponents argue that respecting a rational person's autonomous decision is treating their humanity as an end in itself. Denying their request treats them merely as a means to uphold a societal or medical rule. Under F-UL, they argue a world where such a choice is universally available is rational and respectful of individual sovereignty. |
| Opposing PAS/Euthanasia | Maxim: "It is never permissible for a rational agent to intentionally terminate human life." | Evaluation: Opponents argue that the preservation of life is the supreme, perfect duty that must be universally willed (F-UL). F-H is violated because self-termination, while seemingly autonomous, destroys the very rational nature that grants moral worth. Furthermore, aiding the death of another treats the patient and the physician as mere means to eliminate suffering, rather than valuing their existence as an intrinsic end. |
Export to Sheets
Conclusion on Kantian Evaluation
Kantian ethics typically aligns against PAS/euthanasia. The most powerful Kantian objection rests on the perfect duty to preserve life (F-UL) and the idea that rationally destroying one’s capacity for rational agency (suicide) is a logical contradiction. While F-H strongly supports the autonomy of the individual, Kant argued that suicide is a violation of the rational will because it destroys the source of all moral value—the rational self. Therefore, the maxim of preserving life generally trumps the maxim of ending suffering under a strict Kantian interpretation.
Sample Answer
Since the chosen debate topic from Week 3 was not provided, I will use a prominent, long-standing, and ethically complex debate as a placeholder: The Morality and Legality of Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) / Voluntary Euthanasia.
You must replace "Physician-Assisted Suicide" and all related details with your actual chosen debate topic (e.g., universal basic income, mandatory vaccination, capital punishment, etc.) and ensure the sources are relevant to your subject.
Ethical Analysis of Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) Debate
1. Personal and Communal Ethical Factors in the PAS Debate
The debate over the moral position of allowing or prohibiting Physician-Assisted Suicide is saturated with deeply held personal beliefs and broad societal considerations.