Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism in Frank's Mercy Killing Case

This document discusses the ethical dilemma of Frank's mercy killing case and explores the application of Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism. It provides an analysis of the principles and theories behind these ethical frameworks.

Running Head: Frank 1
Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism- Frank’s Mercy Killing Case
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

Frank 2
Dilemma 1
When a person is suffering from a terminal sickness or pain he might look for an assisted
mercy killing. In this case, death must be inevitable and their misery is in vain.
a) Deontological Theory; Kantian Ethics
The Kantian ethic (developed by Immanuel Kant) is for the proposition that the only
inherently good thing is a virtuous will. The goodness of an action according to Kant is that the
maxim behind it must be a duty to the moral law. The categorical imperative aspect of the theory
is the base construction of the theory in that it acts on all persons despite their needs or wants.
According to Potter and Timmons (2012, p, 195), the principle of universalizability of the theory
demands that a permissible action must be in a position of applying to all people without having
a contradiction. When there is a contradiction the Aristotle "Non-Contradiction" concept is
ruptured which states that just actions cannot amount to illogicalities. The theory also has a
humanity formulation under the Categorical Imperative that requires that humans should not treat
other humans simply as a means to an end, but at all times, additionally, as ends in themselves
(Kerstein, 2009). The Kingdom of Ends formulation demands people to act as if the values of
their deeds make a law for a conjectural kingdom (McCarty, 2014).
There is also the autonomy formulation in Kantian ethics theory that requires rational agents
to be bound to the ethical law by their own resolve as explained by Sensen (2012).
The conception of duty does not involve people performing their duty rancorously (Shakil,
2013). Even though duty often obliges people and stimulates them to act against their
predispositions, it still comes from an agent's choice; the wish to keep the moral law. In this case,
therefore, an agent performing an obligation does so based on the articulate spurs rather than
opposition leanings.
There is also a distinction between perfect and imperfect duty in the theory (McCarty, 2014).
A perfect duty is an obligation not to cheat but always stand for what is true while an imperfect
duty like one of the duty to give charity is flexible to apply in a particular time and place. In the

Frank 3
theory is that According to the theory, a goodwill is a wider conception than will acting from
obligation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016).
Application of Kantian ethics Theory to the moral dilemma in Frank Van Den Bleeken Case
In deciding the ethical point in allowing Frank to undergo physician-assisted suicide, the
Kantian ethic theory would have regards on various aspects. Even though the Kantian theory
excludes divine command, it is for the idea that in whatever one does, he creates a universal law.
This means by killing, one is in approval of murder without omission. Mercy killing for people
suffering psychologically out of life imprisonment is not a good thing even though it could be
considered as following a goodwill. According to Kant, a good thing is one with a maxim of duty
to the moral law. Mercy killing for prisoners of life is not an act following humanity. Moreover,
the action leads to a contradiction in the legal and ethical validity of anguish in prison as a
justifiable means of mercy killing.
In Belgium, as stated, the anguish must be intolerable. In Frank’s case, however, the element
of intolerability is not very vivid. As Kant validates a good will more than it does for a duty, it is
less likely that the Kantian approach would allow mercy killing for prisoners of life as the moral
thing to do because of the resultant effect- a new acceptable behaviour of murder that is
inconsistent with the Belgian laws based on the principles of autonomy, universalizability, the
perfect duty of preserving life and the Kingdom of Ends formulation (Thorpe, 2011).
b) Teleological Theory; Utilitarianism
According to The Driver (2009), rule Utilitarianism states that what qualifies an action to be
right is if the action works to bring the greatest goo. Murray (2018, p 94) defines rule
utilitarianism as
"the rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule
of which it is an instance"

Frank 4
Act utilitarians, conversely, say that an individual's “act is morally right if only if it produces
the best possible results in a specific situation” (Nathanson, 2019). An act is judged in terms of
the results of the act by itself. It has been described by classical utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham,
and others as bringing happiness and preventing pain.
Utilitarians do not go by the celestial command and therefore not bound to any holy book to
seek direction (Smith, 2018). A utilitarian would assess the situations and recommend that the
best action to take is anything that “results in the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest
number of people involved”. Utilitarians rely on the fact that “one has complete sovereign over
their body and any decisions to be made about one’s body are up to them and no other
authority”.
Application
The out-and-out value of human life is very significant (Dimmock, & Fisher, 2017). That
is why the society has always hindered suicide as it is regarded as an unethical behaviour
(Mastro, & Mason, 2017). Seeking a physician-assisted death, though legal in Belgium, remains
a critical issue in the society because of the absurdity it entails. The end result of an action,
according to the utilitarian theory is significant in determining the ethical worth of an act. In this
case, Frank is seemingly in pain, and is seeking to increase happiness. That alone validates
Frank’s mercy killing under act utilitarianism.
In calculating the consequence, euthanasia would upsurge the utile of the psychologically
anguished Frank, but decrease the utile that characterizes the pain. The pain has been described
as unbearable, thus putting Frank in a position that he is unable to have fun in the goings-on that
made his life enjoyable. This is based on the fact that Frank has been in confinement for more
than 30 years and he does no longer enjoy his freedom like other free men do. At best, Frank
remains in suffering at the negative seven based on the fact that his imprisonment is continuous.
There is a possibility of further anguish in the future. Death would generate a value of zero and
consequently, his desolation would be reduced. Since Frank also has complete rule over his
body, he can make any judgments about it without interferences even from the government. In
conclusion, therefore, utilitarians would validate the physician-assisted suicide in that it would

Frank 5
increase pleasure to him than more unbearable physiological anguish connected to continued stay
in prison. Both the act and rule utilitarianism apply in this case.
Analysis
In my opinion, the Kantian ethics theory is better than the utilitarian theory especially in
cases that involve human life. The formulations of autonomy, humanity, universalizability, the
perfect duty of preserving life and the Kingdom of Ends do not only have regard on the
consequences of the assisted suicide on the individual (Frank) but also on the bigger society
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2016). This is not, however, to be interpreted that the
utilitarianism is a bad theory. It is only that the Kantian theory has better results and regard from
life in this particular case. Human life, as already stated is so precious and should be preserved at
all costs. Instead of complying with Frank’s death request, it would be better if utilitarians would
consider other alternatives available to increase pleasure in the confinement, rather than taking
away life to end the pain.

Frank 6
References
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. Open Book Publishers.
Kerstein, S. (2009). Treating others merely as means. Utilitas, 21(2), 163-180.
doi:10.1017/S0953820809003458
Mastro, C. A., & Mason, S. E. (2017). Ethical issues and attitudes towards euthanasia. Modern
Psychological Studies, 22(2), 5.
McCarty, R., (2014). Perfect and Imperfect Duties. . Retrieved 29 May 2019, from
http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/PerfectandImperfectDuties.asp
McCarty, R., (2014). The Kingdom of Ends. Retrieved 29 May 2019, from
http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/GW/KingdomOfEnds.asp
Murray, T. (2018). Identity, Islam and the Twilight of Liberal Values. Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Nathanson, S. (2019) Utilitarianism, Act and Rule | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Iep.utm.edu. Retrieved 29 May 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
Potter, N. T., & Timmons, M. (Eds.). (2012). Morality and universality: essays on ethical
universalizability (Vol. 45). Springer Science & Business Media.
Sensen, O. (Ed.). (2012). Kant on moral autonomy. Cambridge University Press.
Shakil, A., (2013). Kantian Duty Based (Deontological) Ethics. Retrieved 29 May 2019, from
https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics/
Smith, S. (2018). Scriptures and the Guidance of Language: Evaluating a Religious Authority in
Communicative Action. Cambridge University Press.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2016) Kant’s Moral Philosophy. Plato.stanford.edu.
Retrieved 29 May 2019, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
Thorpe, L. (2011). The Realm of Ends as a Community of Spirits: Kant and Swedenborg on the
Kingdom of Heaven and the Cleansing of the Doors of Perception. The Heythrop
Journal, 52(1), 52-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2010.00614.x

Frank 7
Driver, J. (2014). The History of Utilitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 29 May 2019, from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/