Patricia

Part 1

Test Case Study: Suicide

1. Maxim

I have reflected on my life. I'm terminally ill, I am in great pain, and I am no longer capable of acting in ways that reflect my moral values. I choose to end my life not to escape, but to preserve dignity.

1. Humanity Law

Ending one's life to avoid pain is to treat yourself as a disposable object rather than honoring the unchangeable value of being a moral person (Kant, 1785/1996).

1. The World

People would no longer see ending their lives as a valid way to cope with pain, despair, illness, or failure. In a world where the Humanity Law reigns, even individuals facing chronic illness, disability, or end-of-life suffering would not resort to suicide because their dignity is never reduced by illness or limitations. Palliative care would be deeply humanized, ensuring no one suffers needlessly or feels burdened. Assisted suicide would not be morally permitted, but not because pain isn't real; rather, it's because no condition makes your life less valuable as a rational being (Hill, 2009).

1. Contradiction

Yes. We are required to treat someone as an autonomous being but must deny their autonomy if they wish to end their life. This creates a moral tension, as it asks us to respect autonomy while restricting how it can be used.

1. Conclusion

The maxim is immoral. Suicide is morally wrong because it fails to treat the self as an end in itself; it disregards the inherent value of human life and rationality by using one's own existence as a means to avoid suffering (Kant, 1785/1996). According to deontological ethics, the duty to preserve life overrides the subjective desire to end it.

Part 2

Test Case Study: "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" (King, 1963, para. 15).

1. Maxim

I will disobey any unjust law out of moral duty.

1. Universal Law

Everyone must disobey laws that are unjust and follow only those that are just.

1. The World

Civil disobedience would be seen as a moral duty, not a crime. People would feel obligated to examine laws through the lens of justice and act based on conscience and reason. In this world, legal systems would evolve to better reflect human rights, and governments would be held accountable by their citizens (Sandel, 2012).

1. Contradiction

There is no contradiction here. If someone disobeyed laws arbitrarily or selfishly, the rule would become self-defeating and lead to lawlessness. However, because justice can be rationally assessed and universally applied, there is no contradiction in applying this maxim as a universal law (Kant, 1785/1996).

1. Conclusion

According to deontological ethics, disobeying unjust laws out of moral duty is morally permissible and even required. Dr. King's statement reflects Kantian deontology, emphasizing the duty to act according to moral principle, not based on fear or convenience. His civil disobedience exemplifies moral integrity guided by reason and universal ethics.

In paragraphs, reply the posts with a minimum of 100 words

• Reflect on Patricia post by directly commenting on two of the reasoning steps. Part 1 and Part 2 case study
• State whether you agree with the conclusion they reach on the morality of the maxim and explain why you agree or disagree.