What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side given a contemporary debate, such as those concerning animal rights, stem cell research, abortion, the death penalty, and so forth?
In each of these situations, a very delicate topic or topics are being addressed, directly affecting the principles of the right to life, freedom, and non-aggression or harm to living things. The need to uphold the dignity of the living beings involved in the argument, including, of course, humans, comes into focus if we look at it from this perspective, but it is not simple. According to Kant’s ethical philosophy, no one should serve as a means to another person’s ends. As a result, in each of the scenarios put forth, the participants in the debates—humans, and animals must be viewed as ends in themselves, from their own dignity and rights to freedom and life, rather than as means to the ends of others.
When it comes to the death penalty, I’ve said that the death penalty is an act with a license to get rid of a killer from the streets who doesn’t have a license or the approval of society. What may a person on death row say about his or her sentence? because it is really an additional crime committed in a more refined, official, and legitimate manner. I believe Kant would disagree. if I kill someone after getting convicted, I’m using it as a form of pressure or coercion to stop others from killing; nevertheless, I’m doing it by committing a crime. It is incoherent, and as a type of universal rule, it cannot be desired at all. As said in the text If we imprison the criminal in order to keep society safe, we are merely using him for the benefit of others. This violates Kant’s belief that “one man ought never to be dealt with merely as a means sub- servient to the purpose of another.” (Rachels 2018, 151).
The categorical imperative and Kant’s practical outlook both heavily rely on basic practical philosophy and deliberate human action. It emphasizes proper conduct while allowing for freedom of choice. It is opposed to theoretical philosophy, which emphasizes knowing rules. Kant argues that human deliberate action falls within the category of the imperative. According to Kant, receiving hurt results in death and punishment is akin to death. Kantian categories compel us to act in a way that treats each person as an individual with a genuine purpose It should be aware that everyone has an equal right to autonomy.
The critical problems with regard to abortion
When compared to a human being, opponents of abortion feel that a fertilized egg is a human being whereas state proponents of the practice disagree.
According to this journal the author states, “Kant not only propagates respecting others but also oneself. While undertaking a step like abortion, a woman must not pursue such an action without providing adequate reasoning, rather act virtuously in a manner that she respects herself and not be guided by any other inclinations”. (Kini 2018) If you were to have an abortion it is your choice to do so and you must have a respectable reason for doing so.