Euthanasia

1-up: Well, his theory of ethics is this. We all have "categorical imperatives" in us. A categorical imperative is like a rule which is universally valid. For example, "do not kill if the victim has not done harm to you" is a categorical imperative, because in any situation (you could argue otherwise though), it is true. He also theorized that good-will was the only real "moral" will, and he wanted to treat everything as if it were the ends. "Treat the means as if it were some type of ends"

18Karl: I would imagine it quite difficult to actually find that type of situation. So first it'd be acting im goodwill then applying the categorical imperative? Can you explain that ends loop (means as ends)?

1-up: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means."

18Karl: Can you elaborate? Simply restating the assertion doesn't help my understanding of it .

1-up: O. So clearly its this. If I want to get money, the Kantian view says that I should not corrupt, I should not steal, and I should be honest.

18Karl: You should get money for monies sake? errrr we should be good for goodness sake? Is what he's saying? Although that begs several questions.

1-up: Yep. Quite literally.

I'll explain for those who do not understand:
If everyone were allowed to kill fellow human beings, no one would ever be safe. Thus, humans sacrificed the freedom to kill so that everyone is safe.
Those who still want to kill know that in doing so they'll forfeit their comfortable lives as a consequence. They'll realize that it's not worth it and they'll abstain from killing.
That is, on a utilitarian basis it's better if people don't kill each other.
However, the physically and mentally handicapped can be killed quite easily compared to everyone else. If society agrees that ONLY humans with certain kinds of handicaps may be killed (as their continued existence has a negative impact), this barrier which keeps everyone from killing everyone will not have been broken. You'll still be able to live a comfortable life if you murder these acceptable targets.
Thus, under a utilitarian basis there is no reason not to kill the physically and mentally handicapped.

Dassault Papillon: Actually on the utilitarian basis, the following might be the case: if x provides for -5 unit happiness, and y provides for 5 units of happiness, we would be more inclined to chose y over x. If via the theory of greatest happiness, we could eliminate all the x and replace them with y, or at least, reduce the units of x until the lowest possible and vice versa to y. Hence the greatest good would be reached if we substitute x for the mentally handicapped, and the y for mentally stable.

You describe the social contract. Perhaps this is true when the state was first created, but now the state is like Robin Hood. Ultimately, the debate goes much more complicated than that nowadays. I do not think the social contract theories work now; it is an issue of morality, a positive side of it

18Karl: He subsumed your paradigm into his...you realize that right?

1-up: Yep, but it is still a main notion of Kantian ethics.

18Karl: I don't see this as an argument for anything.

1-up: Well, I'm saying that categorical imperatives prevent people from euthanizing the less fortunate?

18Karl: And Imnotabench was saying if society is in agreement then killing the mentally disabled is a categorical imperative.

1-up: Was he? That is ethical relativism, and I no like ethical relativism!

18Karl: I think it was an extension of your kantian argument. I don't think it was relativism, but even if it was; what's wrong with ethical relativism?

1-up: No, actually. My Kantian Argument argued for a more Emotivist view of Ethics. Ethical relativism commits the "is-ought" fallacy big time