When formulating theories,
scientists often begin with certain assumptions that are never proven within
their
theories. They are a basis upon which a theory can grow. In the cases of
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, I believe an important assumption was
overlooked. In both
theories, humans are the ones creating and living by those
theories. Therefore, humans seem to bear a great importance and should be
granted a special privilege. Both theories should begin with the premise that
human life is sacred, meaning that it is not up to man or woman to decide
whether a life should continue or end. When a person murders someone, they are
simply making a judgment about whether or not that person should continue to
live. How can the government see it fit to punish this deed by doing the exact
same thing and making a decision about life or death? Once you place the
restriction that life is sacred on what is valuable and what is right, then you
will be able to better decide on the best action or how to treat someone as an
end. Specifically, in the case of capital punishment, I believe that Kant’s
theory works most closely with this premise and thus leads to the conclusion
that the death penalty should be abolished.
When
it comes to a theory of value, neither Mill nor Kant believes that a human life
is something good in itself and not just for its
consequences. This is where I
believe that both philosophers falter. While it is difficult to completely
understand what it is to not have life, life itself seems to be taken for
granted. Mill believes that pleasure and the absence of pain are the only
things good in and of themselves. Everything else we experience that is good is
only so because of its connection to the removal of pain or the increase of
pleasure. Therefore he relates his entire theory to how things connect with
pain or pleasure. On the other hand, Kant believes that a good will is the only
thing that is good without consequences. This involves being rational,
following your reasons, and acting in accordance with your duty. Duty is
related to Kant’s theory of right action and will be explained further shortly.
I completely agree with Kant’s theory except for his exclusion of the
sovereignty of life; the added assumption that a person should never make a
decision about someone living or dying completes the theory in my mind. Some
may see this as a contradiction since Kant makes such a big deal over a good
will being the one and only thing good in itself. However, I think that Kant
would agree that life is sacred, or in his words “valuable,” if he were
confronted with the question. No one, except perhaps a clinically depressed or
suicidal person, would claim that life has no value but anyone would be
hard-pressed to locate any consequences that could account for the entire
value.