A Child Is Mysterious and Powerful

Within the child lies the fate of the future. Whoever wishes to confer some benefit on society must preserve him from deviation and observe his natural ways acting. A child is mysterious and powerful and contains within himself the secret of human nature. Explain the above quote with reference to the Montessori philosophy. The term Montessori Philosophy originated from the name of Dr. Maria Montessori, one of the most influential pioneers in early childhood education. She advised an education which combines a philosophy with a practical approach based on the central idea of freedom for the child within a carefully planned and structured environment. To analyze the above quote, we will have to know what it is in essence the Montessori philosophy. Maria Montessori was a soft hearted lady who happened to live through the two world wars. She was very much worried that in spite of the development of science and technology in the world, why men are very much unhappy, cruel and keep fighting with each other. She believed that this is because of the lack of fulfillment of human mind. So she deducted that as the adult comes into being through the child, it is important to consider the human being way down from the very childhood itself. Montessori has once opined that â€Å"It is the child who makes the man, and no man exists who was not made by the child he once was. † (http://www. dailymontessori. com/maria-montessori-quotes/) Montessori, who became the first lady doctor in the history of her country, was appointed as assistant doctor at a psychiatric clinic. From this position she got chances to observe some mentally retarded children. Under her care and love many of these children improved even to a position that they could read and write. After that Maria Montessori got chance to look after some slum children for whom she made a home. This was called Casa Dei Bambini, means childrens house. It was from here that Montessori philosophy actually evolved into being. Montessori made a new way of education in which the child is considered as the centre of education with the adult serving only as one who is helping him to develop as a whole; hysically, cognitively, emotionally, spiritually and socially. She discovered that with such an education a unified personality is formed. According to Montessori philosophy, the child has an unrealized potential within himself when he is born. This potential is what helps him to develop from birth onwards. This is called predetermined psychic pattern. Christoph Schiebold states that Good education is not to follow the pages of a workbook. It’s following the workbook that’s within the child! (http://educationaljournal. wordpress. com/2011/07/02/quote-christoph-schiebold) The predetermined psychic pattern (also known as natural laws of development) is there in the child in an embryonic stage when the child is born. So as only a healthy mother gives birth to a healthy baby, the predetermined psychic pattern in the baby also needs a nourishing environment to grow well. In the given quote it is stated a child is mysterious and powerful and contains within himself the secret of human nature. In reference to Montessori philosophy the potentials present in the child from birth itself is what makes the child mysterious and powerful. That itself is the secret of human nature too. The child is mysterious because there is an internal guide in the child which alone lets these laws to unfold themselves. We the adults are not able to understand what is happening there within the child. We can see only certain signs of these laws of natural development reveal themselves by carefully observing the childs behavior. Now let us analyze why the child is described as being powerful. For this we will have to know what the laws of natural development in essence are. These are law of work, law of independence, development of attention, development of will, development of intelligence development of emotion and spiritual life, development of imagination and creativity and stages of growth. Thus it is said that The child is endowed with unknown powers which can guide us to a radiant future. (The Absorbent Mind ,P2) During the observation of children at Casa Dei Bambini, Dr. Maria Montessori discovered that children prefer work to play. They were able to achieve a self integration through this work. She found that the aggressive and destructive children became calm and peaceful after working with the materials. She concluded that through work the child seemed to get fulfillment of some internal need which made him normalized. Montessori found out that independence is necessary to the childs normal development. The child uses his independence to listen to his inner guide for actions that can be useful to him and one who is served is actually limited in his independence. It is well said that we habitually serve children; and this is not only an act of servility towards them but it is dangerous, since it tends to suffocate their useful, spontaneous activity. (Course manual P. 40). We can help the child attain independence by giving opportunity for him to work with the materials by himself, by directing him towards a given end to develop his will, by giving him constructive work to help him in developing discipline, by letting him know and have an understanding of what is good and bad and also giving him freedom to reveal himself completely by playing only passive role. Maria Montessori stated that at certain stages of development, the child has sensitivity to his environment and he directs his attention to particular objects with high intensity and interest. By giving the child materials to work that engage him wholesomely we can help him develop his concentration and build his personality. When the child has the maximum power to concentration or when he gain good power to attention, he becomes calmer and more controlled and rested. Montessori believed that decision taken by the child on any activity and the action taken by him are the basis for development of the will. When the child is allowed to work with the materials as long as he wants, his self concept and power of concentration develop. Thus the child gains an ability to make his own choice which helps develop his will. The perceptions made by the child with the help of his senses are his intelligence. Obtaining conscious knowledge is done by the childs intelligence, comparing and discriminating between the impressions received by the senses. Dr. Maria Montessori believed that development of imagination and creativity are inborn powers which develop through his interactions with the environment. In regard to development of emotional and spiritual life, Montessori found that the child has an inner power to react to emotional and spiritual experiences from birth itself. Montessori discovered 5 periods of growth in children and each period has specific goal, the directionality towards the goal is fixed and each period has its own sensitive periods. To help them reach their goal by maximizing own potentials, the caregivers and teachers need to know these periods of development. Here, from this detailed analysis of predetermined psychic pattern within the child what we can understand is that the child has many abilities (powers) inside him from birth itself. It is this potential that helps him to self construct himself. With this much of original intrinsic assets it is quite reasonable to assume that the child is powerful. According to the philosophy of Montessori, the potentials within the child unfold slowly during the course of time while child self constructs himself. But certain internal aids and external conditions are necessary for the predetermined psychic pattern to reveal itself. The internal aids are sensitive periods and absorbant mind. The external conditions are environment and freedom. Sensitive periods are blocks of time in the childs life when he is absorbed with one characteristic of his environment to the exclusion of all others. Montessori discovered 6 sensitive periods in child. They are sensitivity to order, sensitivity to learning through five senses, sensitivity to small objects, sensitivity to co-ordination of movement, sensitivity to language and sensitivity to social aspect of life. A child has sensitivity to order during the first year itself. It is because of this sensitivity that the child becomes irritated when he is exposed to unfamiliar objects or people, or insists on putting things back on their places and become happy when they see things in accustomed places. In a precise and determined environment only can a child categorise his perception and form an internal framework with which to understand and relate his world. Montessori found out that the child has a sensitivity to learning through his five senses. The child has a natural curiosity to explore the things around him. So he has to work with this environment to develop his neurological structures for perceiving and thinking which is the basis of intelligence development. When the child is about two to two and half years his attention is drawn towards small objects. This sensitivity to small objets helps him to concentrate his intellectual powers on a specific problem and also helps him to hold his attention for long period of time fostering his ability to focus. The child has sensitivity to movement when he is two to 4 years of age. During this period the child has a tendency to perform and repeat a movement for the sake of gaining greater control. Here the child learns to bring his body under his will. The child become sensitive to human language during the period of sensitivity to language. The sixth aspect of sensitive periods being sensitivity to social aspects of life, explains the childs interest in other children of his age group. This period enables the child to recognize affection and friendship to develop. This way child learns to be part of a group. Montessori philosophy tells us that there will be problems when the child is starved from the right environment in his sensitive periods. When there is no order, the child will feel very insecure and lack confidence. If the child is not allowed to explore his environment during his period of learning through five senses, it will hinder the childs learning, he will become rebellious, with poor will and concentration and it will be difficult for him to compare and judge. By the lack of right environment for sensitivity to small objects, the child will become less curious to learn new things and he will become passive. The lack of environment permitting co-ordination of movements decreases the childs fine and gross motor development which in turn affect the childs balance and agility. If the child is not regularly exposed to language he will lack self confidence and will develop low self-concept due to this inability to express himself. If the child is not allowed to socialise he will feel lonely and become unfriendly and antisocial. Absorbant mind helps the child gain knowledge from his environment. From birth onwards the childs mind starts absorbing everything the he sees and experiences around him. This absorbing takes place by two stages namely unconscious and conscious. When the child is zero to three years of age, he absorbs everything unconsciously and these information absorbed are stored as impressions in his mind. The impressions made by the unconscious mind prepares the childs mind which later will be used by his conscious mind. After 3 years of age the childs mind starts absorbing experiences consciously. In this stage, the child will have memory and has developed a will too. Montessori also believed that environment can help or hinder the childs development. So the environment must be a nourishing place for the childs needs for self-construction. She felt that the environment must be prepared carefully by a knowledgeable and sensitive adult and the adult must be a participant in the living and growing of the child within the prepared environment. An important aspect to be taken care of with regard to Montessori environment is freedom. It is because of 2 reasons. First, it is only in an atmosphere of freedom that the child can reveal himself. Secondly if the child possesses within himself the pattern for his own development the inner guide must be allowed to direct the childs growth. However, the childs freedom is limited in the respect that he is not permitted to interfere on the rights of others and is careful of the materials, environment and himself. Apart from freedom the other basic elements in a Montessori prepared environment are structure and order, respect for others, reality and nature, beauty and atmosphere, the Montessori material and development of community life. The teacher is the link that puts the child in touch with the environment. She prepares the environment and the child uses the environment to construct himself. The teacher has a role in helping the development of predetermined psychic pattern of the child. The teacher observes the child carefully during his activities in the Montessori environment and prepares activities for him according to the childs level of development. According to Montessori the two aspects of the psyche namely the mind and the body(the mental energy and physical energy) should work in unison. Otherwise child will be deviated. A deviation is a warp in the character that will occur in the child during the formative period, (birth-six years) because of obstacles or repressions to his natural development. This we can understand more if we consider the previously explained sensitive periods of the child. We can understand that the child self constructs himself with the aid of his sensitive periods and nourishing environment. If these are deprived, he becomes deviated. During her work with the children at Casa Dei Bambini Montessori found that some mental integration happens within the child when he works with the materials. She referred to this as normalization. In a Montessori classroom children are given nourishing environment and the teacher is careful about the different stages of development of the child and aid him with his internal necessities. Thus the child is able to work according to his will (as his inner guide directs him). So his mental and physical energy work in unison ans the child becomes normalised. Thus a Montessori classroom becomes a gathering of normalised children. In such a group they are naturally full of love, sympathy, and feel for each other. They show respect for the rights of others, they help each other, they support each other morally and there will be a total harmony in the classroom. Montessori termed this as a society of cohesion. As per the analysis of the Montessori philosophy, we understand that the Montessori classroom works based on these principles and that a society of cohesion exists in such a classroom.

Project management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 14

Project management - Essay Example Interaction between departments tends to favor relationship creation between various interfaces and hence bolsters chances of project success. Worker motivation determines employee commitment to the project’s overall aims and objectives. The more committed the employees, the greater the effort input to the project and its success. Moreover, the planning process for projects should involve as many vertical levels and interfaces as possible. The involvement of various project elements in planning allows a greater understanding of the overall picture and solicits appropriate cooperation. The involvement of various elements in the project environment in planning also ensures that realizable deadlines and costs are provided. In order to gauge the success of the project at any stage, performance evaluation needs to be carried out at various levels. Effective performance evaluation allows the project managers to adopt effective strategies for coping. Rewards must also be provided con summate with project objectives. Any organization that plans to transform its culture from adversarial to cooperation needs to take into account a pervasive vision that allows for various elements in the organization to participate, tolerate and cooperate together. Employees must be motivated to help each other out and there ought to be a reward system to encourage such designs. Moreover, policies regarding hierarchical communication, authority and responsibility need to be clearly defined for effective and accountable action (Project Management

Handgun control Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Handgun control - Research Paper Example In order to understand gun control legislation, it is necessary to understand the phrase’ a â€Å"responsible citizen†. According to a local police officer, Steve Rusiecki, a responsible citizen is one who is a law-abiding citizen, does not abuse alcohol or drugs, has no felony records, has renounced U.S. citizenship, is legally in the U.S., is not mentally sick, and has not been dishonorably discharged from the military (Savage 1). This description entails all the elements from the Arizona’s concealed carry law and Federal Gun Control Act of 1968. The founding fathers made the second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and it states: â€Å"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed† (Savage 2). It was then included into the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers feared the federal government was going to oppress its citizens if they had no means of defend their nations and themselves. The right to possess and use guns was facilitated by Algernon Sidney, Aristotle, John Locke and Cicero. According to Samuel Adams, the militia that is described in the United States Constitution does not only refer to the National Guard or the Army. He suggests this group is comprised of free citizens. In addition, George Manson argues that a well managed militia comprises of Freeholders, Gentlemen and other Freemen (Squires 77). The American Revolutionary War was won with the help of an armed population consisting of militias, continental army, partisans and independent companies. It is, therefore, evident that the Founding Fathers realized that the society can benefit from firearms that are handled by responsible citizens (Squires 77). Many years later after the Revolution War, the government began to introduce regulations on the possession and usage of firearms. The initial measure was concerned with the way in which citizens could carry guns (Harrold 5). For example, in 1850 the Louisiana Supreme Court gave a ruling that the constitution does not guarantee any citizen to carry con cealed arms. However, earlier courts’ rulings asserted that the constitution protected the right of citizens to possess and use concealed weapons (Harrold 4). Just some time before Civil War, most Southern States, passed laws that denied the freed blacks and slaves from possessing firearms. This decision was initially made by Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott argued that blacks, and slave had no rights to citizenship and they, therefore, have no right to possess and carry guns. The current gun control legislation takes into

Canada :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Canada Hi my name is insert your name and I’ll be writing about Canada. Canada is the greatest country in the world and it has been voted the best country in the world to live in for the past 3 years in a row by the United Nations. Canada consists of ten provinces and three territories, the newest territories is Nunavut. Nunavut is the land of the Indians (Natives). The capital of Nunavut is Iqaluit and it is located on Baffin Island.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Canada has many professional sports teams in all the major sports except football. Some people say that the CFL is a professional football league but the players are mostly NFL rejects. Our sports teams for the NHL include the Vancouver Canucks, Edmonton Oilers, Calgary Flames, Toronto Maple leafs, Ottawa Senators, and the Montreal Canadians. Canada’s most successful NHL team has been the Montreal Canadians, they have won an astonishing 23 Stanley Cups. Two NHL teams have left Canada because they were located in small markets, Canada has lost the Winnipeg Jets to Phoenix and we have also lost the Quebec Nordiqs to Colorado. Losing NHL teams to the U.S is a growing epidemic because players are demanding more and more money and the ticket prices are going up to accommodate the players demands. Another reason that we are going to lose more NHL teams is that the Government taxation on the Canadian teams, the Montreal Canadians alone have paid more taxes in a ye ar than all the American teams combined, the Government has to let NHL teams pay less taxes then they are right now if anyone ever wants to see hockey in the small markets in Canada. The last reason hockey teams are being lost to the U.S is the declining Canadian dollar and the players wanting their money in U.S funds. I think that Canada is going to lose the Senators, the Oilers, and the Flames in the next ten years.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Canada also has two NBA teams and they are the Vancouver Grizzlies and the Toronto Raptors. They are both relatively new teams, thee Grizzlies are going to build their team around Shareef Abdur-Rahim a young small forward and the Raptors are going to build their team around Vince Carter a young power forward.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Finally, Canada has two MLB (Major League Baseball) teams, the teams are the Toronto Blue Jays and the Montreal Expos.

Kant on Suicide Essay

4. Explain and critically assess Kant’s argument that one has a duty to preserve one’s own life. As rational beings Kant believes we have a categorical duty of self-preservation to not wilfully take our own lives. Kant talks in depth about duty and believes we should act out of respect for the moral law. The will is the only inherent good, as we are only motivated by duty and nothing else. We should act only out of demands of the law, not from inclination, desires or to achieve a particular goal. Duty dictates we should never act or will something if we do not want it to become a universal law. Kant was against any form of suicide. He strongly believed that: in taking a life you treat humanity merely as a means to an end. Kant wouldn’t be interested in the suffering or pain caused to even a person who was terminally ill and wanted to end their life, nor would he take into consideration the family/friends suffering. In this essay I will be arguing that if we follow the categorical imperative it is immoral to sacrifice a life because it involves treating humanity merely as a means to an end. I will examine John Hardwig’s counter argument that we should end our own lives if more pain and suffering is caused by prolonging it/living it even if we are no longer a rational being. We must understand that Kant is saying; if I make a maxium e. g. – ‘if I am in unbearable suffering, I should take my own life’ – it must meet the universal law and be applied to everyone. Kant believes we ought to preserve our own lives because it is our moral duty (it is necessary and universal). John Hardwig however, would argue we also have the right to end our lives. Kant would dismiss this because ultimately humans are the bearers of rational life (e. g. it is too sacred to sacrifice). Suicide fails Kant’s Categorical Imperative on the following grounds: It seeks to shorten a life that promises more troubles than please, this would be killing yourself out of self-love; when in fact the real aim would be to live a life worth living, with more pleasure than difficulties. Kant isn’t claiming that it’s impossible for everyone to commit suicide or for everyone to will it (and therefore it becoming a universal law). He believes ‘it would not exist as nature; hence the maxim cannot obtain as a law of nature’. (Immanuel Kant, The Groundwork of the methaphysics of morals, Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann, Cambridge University 2012, p45 emphasis added). Here Kant seems to be suggesting that suicide isn’t a natural path of life; that it goes against our purpose and that it’s a contradiction to end your life when your goal would be to have an enjoyable life. The idea that the destruction of life is incompatible with improvement suggests that nature couldn’t/wouldn’t allow self-love to be used in a way that is contrary to its purpose. There is surely an obviously contradiction here; in ending one’s life to prevent suffering, one is using one’s life mere means to an end, which automatically fails the categorical imperative. Take the case of Maria Von Herbert- she is clearly appealing to Kant, if under any circumstances; suicide is morally acceptable? He isn’t as blatant with her as in his writings, but let us not forget, Kant doesn’t see woman as rational beings. I agree with Rae Langton that Kant totally bypasses the reason Herbert is writing to him. He doesn’t confront her on suicide but instead reduces her problem to a moral dilemma (regrets lying or telling the truth ), which as an intelligent woman whom has read all his writings; she could work out for herself. Could this have made Kant certain that she did lie and therefore fail the kingdom of ends? Perhaps Kant is being hypocritical; he doesn’t tell Maria the whole truth of suicide merely reducing her to ‘a thing’. He tells Maria she should be ‘ashamed’ for not telling the truth to her former friend but, doesn’t this apply for himself too? Is he just avoiding the truth (states this is just as bad a lying) by not confronting her about suicide? Most likely he wants her to be autonomous and get to the reason herself. Hardwig disagrees with Kant. Take a different situation; Is a terminally ill person-needing 24/7 care, who is entirely financially reliant- only using their family as a means to an end? You can see this as a ‘two way street’ situation. Kant doesn’t look to consequences of an action; it wouldn’t matter to his philosophy that the ill person’s family suffers because they are preserving their life. But is there a flaw? (1) I ought to do my duty as long as I am alive; and (2) It is my duty to go on living as long as possible. Kant strongly believes that you can’t affirm life by taking your own. There is only one exception. Kant claims those who die in battle are ‘victims of fate’ (not simply suicide because they chose to fight). He holds the view that it is better to die in battle than to die of a wound in hospital. Kant believes it’s noble to risk our lives for others- nobody uses us as mere means and we follow our own maxium. We are no longer forced into serving for our country or deceived into joining (if this did happen it would fail the CI because we wouldn’t be treated as rational beings and would be used as mere means and not as ends in ourselves). John Hardwig strongly believes that life should be treated no differently from death. We are free to live in the way we want, so why aren’t we free to die in the way we want (when and how)? He also switches the question but Kant would simply say we have a duty to live. Hardwig has also argued that medical advances eliminate the threats of many terminal illnesses. He then concludes, if our continued existence creates signi? cant hardship for our loved ones, we have a duty to die. By continuing a live of suffering the burden that this person imposes on others is often great. One may have the duty to die in order to relieve them of these burdens. This argument seems to be based on fairness. Kant would refute this; suffering is a tool of reasoning and it ensures the development of mankind. Kant strongly believes that we should preserve our own lives. The argument though strong is flawed. 1- All duties are absolute- Kant doesn’t advise us on how to resolve conflicting duty (for example: help others vs. never kill). 2- He discounts moral emotions like compassion, sympathy, desire and remorse as appropriate and ethical motives for action. 3- Kant completely ignores the consequences of an action and is purposefully blind to following circumstances. He states that human life is valuable because humans are the bearers of rational life. We have the great capacity to think, organize, plan etc. and Kant holds this as being valuable. Therefore we should not sacrifice this for anything (as previously discussed autonomous creatures should not be treated merely as a means or for the happiness of another). There are also great issues with Hardwigs counter argument; if we agree that we have the duty to die; who has the duty to die? When do they have they duty to die? Although this argument is strong is some areas (greater burden), it is greatly flawed. It would be extremely difficult to universalize a maxium for everyone to follow so they could decide if at that moment they had the duty to die. A problem would also occur if the family disagreed with the ill person’s decision, which could cause great problems within society (though Kant would not look to consequences but they are greatly important to Hardwigs argument). I believe –and agree with Kant- that if we follow the categorical imperative it is immoral to sacrifice anyone at all (including yourself) because it involves treating the humanity in that person as merely a means to an end. I also accept and agree with his point that it seems to go against our purpose and is an unnatural path for us to take a life. I find it interesting that Kant believes suffering is a tool of development and therefore essential to us. Though John Hardwigs argument is partly convincing, if we were all given the choice of when we should die, would we find the right time? This would be very hard to govern, as people would of course take advantage of this right. I’ve found it hard to find a counter argument to Kant’s stance -without suffering there wouldn’t be cures and perhaps less happiness. Therefore I have to agree with Kant that it only allows us to grow and develop. Thus we do have the duty to preserve our own lives even if it is riddled with suffering.

Kant on Suicide Essay

4. Explain and critically assess Kant’s argument that one has a duty to preserve one’s own life. As rational beings Kant believes we have a categorical duty of self-preservation to not wilfully take our own lives. Kant talks in depth about duty and believes we should act out of respect for the moral law. The will is the only inherent good, as we are only motivated by duty and nothing else. We should act only out of demands of the law, not from inclination, desires or to achieve a particular goal. Duty dictates we should never act or will something if we do not want it to become a universal law. Kant was against any form of suicide. He strongly believed that: in taking a life you treat humanity merely as a means to an end. Kant wouldn’t be interested in the suffering or pain caused to even a person who was terminally ill and wanted to end their life, nor would he take into consideration the family/friends suffering. In this essay I will be arguing that if we follow the categorical imperative it is immoral to sacrifice a life because it involves treating humanity merely as a means to an end. I will examine John Hardwig’s counter argument that we should end our own lives if more pain and suffering is caused by prolonging it/living it even if we are no longer a rational being. We must understand that Kant is saying; if I make a maxium e. g. – ‘if I am in unbearable suffering, I should take my own life’ – it must meet the universal law and be applied to everyone. Kant believes we ought to preserve our own lives because it is our moral duty (it is necessary and universal). John Hardwig however, would argue we also have the right to end our lives. Kant would dismiss this because ultimately humans are the bearers of rational life (e. g. it is too sacred to sacrifice). Suicide fails Kant’s Categorical Imperative on the following grounds: It seeks to shorten a life that promises more troubles than please, this would be killing yourself out of self-love; when in fact the real aim would be to live a life worth living, with more pleasure than difficulties. Kant isn’t claiming that it’s impossible for everyone to commit suicide or for everyone to will it (and therefore it becoming a universal law). He believes ‘it would not exist as nature; hence the maxim cannot obtain as a law of nature’. (Immanuel Kant, The Groundwork of the methaphysics of morals, Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann, Cambridge University 2012, p45 emphasis added). Here Kant seems to be suggesting that suicide isn’t a natural path of life; that it goes against our purpose and that it’s a contradiction to end your life when your goal would be to have an enjoyable life. The idea that the destruction of life is incompatible with improvement suggests that nature couldn’t/wouldn’t allow self-love to be used in a way that is contrary to its purpose. There is surely an obviously contradiction here; in ending one’s life to prevent suffering, one is using one’s life mere means to an end, which automatically fails the categorical imperative. Take the case of Maria Von Herbert- she is clearly appealing to Kant, if under any circumstances; suicide is morally acceptable? He isn’t as blatant with her as in his writings, but let us not forget, Kant doesn’t see woman as rational beings. I agree with Rae Langton that Kant totally bypasses the reason Herbert is writing to him. He doesn’t confront her on suicide but instead reduces her problem to a moral dilemma (regrets lying or telling the truth ), which as an intelligent woman whom has read all his writings; she could work out for herself. Could this have made Kant certain that she did lie and therefore fail the kingdom of ends? Perhaps Kant is being hypocritical; he doesn’t tell Maria the whole truth of suicide merely reducing her to ‘a thing’. He tells Maria she should be ‘ashamed’ for not telling the truth to her former friend but, doesn’t this apply for himself too? Is he just avoiding the truth (states this is just as bad a lying) by not confronting her about suicide? Most likely he wants her to be autonomous and get to the reason herself. Hardwig disagrees with Kant. Take a different situation; Is a terminally ill person-needing 24/7 care, who is entirely financially reliant- only using their family as a means to an end? You can see this as a ‘two way street’ situation. Kant doesn’t look to consequences of an action; it wouldn’t matter to his philosophy that the ill person’s family suffers because they are preserving their life. But is there a flaw? (1) I ought to do my duty as long as I am alive; and (2) It is my duty to go on living as long as possible. Kant strongly believes that you can’t affirm life by taking your own. There is only one exception. Kant claims those who die in battle are ‘victims of fate’ (not simply suicide because they chose to fight). He holds the view that it is better to die in battle than to die of a wound in hospital. Kant believes it’s noble to risk our lives for others- nobody uses us as mere means and we follow our own maxium. We are no longer forced into serving for our country or deceived into joining (if this did happen it would fail the CI because we wouldn’t be treated as rational beings and would be used as mere means and not as ends in ourselves). John Hardwig strongly believes that life should be treated no differently from death. We are free to live in the way we want, so why aren’t we free to die in the way we want (when and how)? He also switches the question but Kant would simply say we have a duty to live. Hardwig has also argued that medical advances eliminate the threats of many terminal illnesses. He then concludes, if our continued existence creates signi? cant hardship for our loved ones, we have a duty to die. By continuing a live of suffering the burden that this person imposes on others is often great. One may have the duty to die in order to relieve them of these burdens. This argument seems to be based on fairness. Kant would refute this; suffering is a tool of reasoning and it ensures the development of mankind. Kant strongly believes that we should preserve our own lives. The argument though strong is flawed. 1- All duties are absolute- Kant doesn’t advise us on how to resolve conflicting duty (for example: help others vs. never kill). 2- He discounts moral emotions like compassion, sympathy, desire and remorse as appropriate and ethical motives for action. 3- Kant completely ignores the consequences of an action and is purposefully blind to following circumstances. He states that human life is valuable because humans are the bearers of rational life. We have the great capacity to think, organize, plan etc. and Kant holds this as being valuable. Therefore we should not sacrifice this for anything (as previously discussed autonomous creatures should not be treated merely as a means or for the happiness of another). There are also great issues with Hardwigs counter argument; if we agree that we have the duty to die; who has the duty to die? When do they have they duty to die? Although this argument is strong is some areas (greater burden), it is greatly flawed. It would be extremely difficult to universalize a maxium for everyone to follow so they could decide if at that moment they had the duty to die. A problem would also occur if the family disagreed with the ill person’s decision, which could cause great problems within society (though Kant would not look to consequences but they are greatly important to Hardwigs argument). I believe –and agree with Kant- that if we follow the categorical imperative it is immoral to sacrifice anyone at all (including yourself) because it involves treating the humanity in that person as merely a means to an end. I also accept and agree with his point that it seems to go against our purpose and is an unnatural path for us to take a life. I find it interesting that Kant believes suffering is a tool of development and therefore essential to us. Though John Hardwigs argument is partly convincing, if we were all given the choice of when we should die, would we find the right time? This would be very hard to govern, as people would of course take advantage of this right. I’ve found it hard to find a counter argument to Kant’s stance -without suffering there wouldn’t be cures and perhaps less happiness. Therefore I have to agree with Kant that it only allows us to grow and develop. Thus we do have the duty to preserve our own lives even if it is riddled with suffering.

Kant on Suicide Essay

4. Explain and critically assess Kant’s argument that one has a duty to preserve one’s own life. As rational beings Kant believes we have a categorical duty of self-preservation to not wilfully take our own lives. Kant talks in depth about duty and believes we should act out of respect for the moral law. The will is the only inherent good, as we are only motivated by duty and nothing else. We should act only out of demands of the law, not from inclination, desires or to achieve a particular goal. Duty dictates we should never act or will something if we do not want it to become a universal law. Kant was against any form of suicide. He strongly believed that: in taking a life you treat humanity merely as a means to an end. Kant wouldn’t be interested in the suffering or pain caused to even a person who was terminally ill and wanted to end their life, nor would he take into consideration the family/friends suffering. In this essay I will be arguing that if we follow the categorical imperative it is immoral to sacrifice a life because it involves treating humanity merely as a means to an end. I will examine John Hardwig’s counter argument that we should end our own lives if more pain and suffering is caused by prolonging it/living it even if we are no longer a rational being. We must understand that Kant is saying; if I make a maxium e. g. – ‘if I am in unbearable suffering, I should take my own life’ – it must meet the universal law and be applied to everyone. Kant believes we ought to preserve our own lives because it is our moral duty (it is necessary and universal). John Hardwig however, would argue we also have the right to end our lives. Kant would dismiss this because ultimately humans are the bearers of rational life (e. g. it is too sacred to sacrifice). Suicide fails Kant’s Categorical Imperative on the following grounds: It seeks to shorten a life that promises more troubles than please, this would be killing yourself out of self-love; when in fact the real aim would be to live a life worth living, with more pleasure than difficulties. Kant isn’t claiming that it’s impossible for everyone to commit suicide or for everyone to will it (and therefore it becoming a universal law). He believes ‘it would not exist as nature; hence the maxim cannot obtain as a law of nature’. (Immanuel Kant, The Groundwork of the methaphysics of morals, Mary Gregor and Jens Timmermann, Cambridge University 2012, p45 emphasis added). Here Kant seems to be suggesting that suicide isn’t a natural path of life; that it goes against our purpose and that it’s a contradiction to end your life when your goal would be to have an enjoyable life. The idea that the destruction of life is incompatible with improvement suggests that nature couldn’t/wouldn’t allow self-love to be used in a way that is contrary to its purpose. There is surely an obviously contradiction here; in ending one’s life to prevent suffering, one is using one’s life mere means to an end, which automatically fails the categorical imperative. Take the case of Maria Von Herbert- she is clearly appealing to Kant, if under any circumstances; suicide is morally acceptable? He isn’t as blatant with her as in his writings, but let us not forget, Kant doesn’t see woman as rational beings. I agree with Rae Langton that Kant totally bypasses the reason Herbert is writing to him. He doesn’t confront her on suicide but instead reduces her problem to a moral dilemma (regrets lying or telling the truth ), which as an intelligent woman whom has read all his writings; she could work out for herself. Could this have made Kant certain that she did lie and therefore fail the kingdom of ends? Perhaps Kant is being hypocritical; he doesn’t tell Maria the whole truth of suicide merely reducing her to ‘a thing’. He tells Maria she should be ‘ashamed’ for not telling the truth to her former friend but, doesn’t this apply for himself too? Is he just avoiding the truth (states this is just as bad a lying) by not confronting her about suicide? Most likely he wants her to be autonomous and get to the reason herself. Hardwig disagrees with Kant. Take a different situation; Is a terminally ill person-needing 24/7 care, who is entirely financially reliant- only using their family as a means to an end? You can see this as a ‘two way street’ situation. Kant doesn’t look to consequences of an action; it wouldn’t matter to his philosophy that the ill person’s family suffers because they are preserving their life. But is there a flaw? (1) I ought to do my duty as long as I am alive; and (2) It is my duty to go on living as long as possible. Kant strongly believes that you can’t affirm life by taking your own. There is only one exception. Kant claims those who die in battle are ‘victims of fate’ (not simply suicide because they chose to fight). He holds the view that it is better to die in battle than to die of a wound in hospital. Kant believes it’s noble to risk our lives for others- nobody uses us as mere means and we follow our own maxium. We are no longer forced into serving for our country or deceived into joining (if this did happen it would fail the CI because we wouldn’t be treated as rational beings and would be used as mere means and not as ends in ourselves). John Hardwig strongly believes that life should be treated no differently from death. We are free to live in the way we want, so why aren’t we free to die in the way we want (when and how)? He also switches the question but Kant would simply say we have a duty to live. Hardwig has also argued that medical advances eliminate the threats of many terminal illnesses. He then concludes, if our continued existence creates signi? cant hardship for our loved ones, we have a duty to die. By continuing a live of suffering the burden that this person imposes on others is often great. One may have the duty to die in order to relieve them of these burdens. This argument seems to be based on fairness. Kant would refute this; suffering is a tool of reasoning and it ensures the development of mankind. Kant strongly believes that we should preserve our own lives. The argument though strong is flawed. 1- All duties are absolute- Kant doesn’t advise us on how to resolve conflicting duty (for example: help others vs. never kill). 2- He discounts moral emotions like compassion, sympathy, desire and remorse as appropriate and ethical motives for action. 3- Kant completely ignores the consequences of an action and is purposefully blind to following circumstances. He states that human life is valuable because humans are the bearers of rational life. We have the great capacity to think, organize, plan etc. and Kant holds this as being valuable. Therefore we should not sacrifice this for anything (as previously discussed autonomous creatures should not be treated merely as a means or for the happiness of another). There are also great issues with Hardwigs counter argument; if we agree that we have the duty to die; who has the duty to die? When do they have they duty to die? Although this argument is strong is some areas (greater burden), it is greatly flawed. It would be extremely difficult to universalize a maxium for everyone to follow so they could decide if at that moment they had the duty to die. A problem would also occur if the family disagreed with the ill person’s decision, which could cause great problems within society (though Kant would not look to consequences but they are greatly important to Hardwigs argument). I believe –and agree with Kant- that if we follow the categorical imperative it is immoral to sacrifice anyone at all (including yourself) because it involves treating the humanity in that person as merely a means to an end. I also accept and agree with his point that it seems to go against our purpose and is an unnatural path for us to take a life. I find it interesting that Kant believes suffering is a tool of development and therefore essential to us. Though John Hardwigs argument is partly convincing, if we were all given the choice of when we should die, would we find the right time? This would be very hard to govern, as people would of course take advantage of this right. I’ve found it hard to find a counter argument to Kant’s stance -without suffering there wouldn’t be cures and perhaps less happiness. Therefore I have to agree with Kant that it only allows us to grow and develop. Thus we do have the duty to preserve our own lives even if it is riddled with suffering.