Kantian Ethics and Utilitarianism in Frank's Mercy Killing Case

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"