Kant discusses the duty of a man to himself as the “preservation of himself in his animal nature” (Groundwork 421). In this section, Kant proposes many ways of destructing one’s animal nature; suicide, self-mutilation, using one’s body in a sexual way not intended for reproduction, drunkenness, gluttony and “stupefying agents” such as opium and other products of the plant kingdom (427). Kant makes the case that suicide is a crime --it is not only a violation of one’s duty to other men (or other duties such as that of a spouse, a father, or a citizen) but most importantly it is a violation of the duty to oneself (422). Kant claims that “a man is still obligated to preserve his life simply because he is a person and must therefore recognize a duty to himself” (422).
While the righteousness or lack thereof of suicide is a common theme in literature, plays, religion and other influential aspects of society, Kant identifies another form of destruction of one’s animal nature, and that is the act of self-mutilation. Kant believes that when one “deprives himself of certain integral parts by dismembering or mutilating himself” he is guilty of partial destruction of one’s animal nature (421). Kant goes on to offer examples of “partial self-murder” such as giving away or selling a tooth so it can be planted in the jawbone of another person, or submitting oneself to castration in order to gain an easier livelihood as a singer (423). To me, this would imply that Kant regards all cosmetic surgery as self-mutilation, and therefore partial murder of oneself. Cosmetic surgery is widespread throughout today’s media, and very prevalent among celebrities. Kant takes an interesting stance on this issue; in one regard I don’t believe cosmetic surgery is such a huge deprivation of one’s nature, but in the way that it suggests one is not comfortable in one’s body, it does seem like an abandonment of the duty to preserve oneself.
Kant says that “this is not the case with the amputation of a dead organ” (423). This leads me to question how Kant would feel about live organ donation for a noble cause. For example,someone donating a kidney to a family member in order to save his or her life.In that case, is that still destruction of our animal nature and partial self-murder, even if it is completely selfless and has a noble cause? I believe that Kant would say no, because he says, “Where there is courage, there is always respect for the humanity in one’s own person.” If one is respecting the humanity in one’s own person, how can they be participating in partial self-murder at the same time? To say Kant would support this somewhat contradicts his previously stated position on replanting a tooth in another person’s jawbone but, because donating a live organ is not lack of respect for one’s body or one’s nature (instead, it is a courageous act to aid another) I believe that Kant would recognize the courage and respect for humanity in a live organ transport done for the sake of a noble cause. This would differ from surgery for the purposes of changing oneself for the sake of being accepted in society, or trying to improve one’s appearance or abilities. I think it’s safe to assume that Kant would not be a Michael Jackson fan,because he would regard his cosmetic alterations as partial destruction of self and “degrading the humanity in his person” (423).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well written response Maryellen. You bring up a very interesting paradox which was further confused as we discussed in class. When we were discussing the issue of whether actions are in accordance with duty or out of duty, I had a couple of questions which pertain to your question on surgery. You brought up the question of whether it is a noble cause or not to donate a kidney.
I certainly believe that Kant would consider that a just and noble act. But would he consider it out of duty? I believe he would not, because although it is being beneficent toward the person, you have knowledge of your action and you get pleasure out of it. Therefore it is beneficial to you, and therefore not out of duty. This brings me to my paradox, how can one by altruistic? One must give without know that he or she gives. If this is the case then consider this example: you wake up in a bathtub of ice, and your kidney is missing. You have no idea how you got there or where your kidney went. Later you learn that your kidney was given to a poor little girl with a fatal disease- and you saved her life. Is this altruistic? While you are certainly benefiting the little girl, you had no knowledge of your gift, so it can’t really be said that you are moral.
So basically my question is, can you ever be moral and act out of duty or from duty while also giving to another?
Going back to the comment about donating the organ I agree that it is not out of duty becaus you are recieving some pleasure by the action. However, my question would be a person dontaing a kidney after he/she is already dead. Would this be considered duty because he/she is not recieving pleasure?
The underlying idea here is that because there is no pleasure being recieved by the man or woman who unknowingly donated the organ it is out of duty. However, my qustion now is, is any of this a possibilty if someone is not living?
It seems as though in this case it would lean towards the side of ethical duties to others because the person is in no way recieving any beneficiary seeing as though he/she is already dead.
I also agree that donating an organ is not an act of duty due to the fact that the individual is receiving some pleasure from the action. In response to Matt’s question, I think that in the situation in which an individual is donating a kidney after he/she is already dead, the donation could still possibly be considered a duty because the individual had to choose to become an organ donor. Perhaps that got some pleasure out of the fact that they could possibly help another individual by donating an organ?
In response to Maryellen’s comment about how Kant contradicts himself due to his comment about replanting a tooth in another person’s jawbone, I feel that an organ donation and plastic surgery are two very different things, and I think Kant would agree. An organ transplant may be necessary to survive, however, plastic surgery usually is not. Thus, I agree with you on your position of how Kant would feel about organ donations.
In response James comment, I agree with the claim that Kant would not consider the act of donating an organ as being out of duty. With the comparison between self-mutilation and donating an organ, they both, in some way, provide the person pleasure. The act of a person becoming castrated in order to improve his voice provides the same pleasure as someone donating an organ and knowing they are saving someone’s life. The difference between these two examples is the motivation for their action. The first action, castration, is done out of self-motivation and benefit, whereas, the second action, organ donation, is done out of motivation and benefit of another person. Even though these two motives are different, the doing of the action provides the same pleasure for each person making both of these actions being not out of duty.
Post a Comment