An analysis of the principles of ethics in Immanuel Kant’s and John Stuart Mill's perspectives on euthanasia

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative study of the ethical concepts of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill on euthanasia. The objective is to compare Immanuel Kant’s and John Stuart Mill’s ethical theories on euthanasia by analysing the ethical ideas from which their philosophies formed the foundation of their opinions on supporting or not supporting euthanasia, which is a controversial topic in society. According to the analysis, Immanuel Kant did not advocate euthanasia because Kant was more concerned with good intentions than with outcomes, and he based his conclusions on the original intention of the action. If good will is wrong, it is wrong from the beginning. If considered for reasons that are universal laws, it is wrong to end one’s own life or destroy another person’s life. That would be considered wrong without any conditions. Euthanasia is regarded as a violation of human rights concerning the right to life and body. This covers medical professionals who carry out euthanasia, the taking of another person’s life, which is against universal law and a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following this is John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism, which is a concept that does not directly support euthanasia but does not deny euthanasia. Mill’s utilitarianism depends on results. If the results are beneficial and make many people happy, then the action is considered a beneficial one. On the other hand, if the result causes suffering to a large number of people, then it is considered a negative action according to Mill’s utilitarian theory.