kant
1.) consequences are irrelevant to an assesment fo the moral status of an action
2.) a "good" action is one that flows from a rational recognition of obligation (duty)
dieontology
any rule, principle, or duty based ethic
will  = reason
1. rational beings alone have the capacity to ac to principles
2.)  the will ( reason) conceives of these principles as obligations
3.) reason concieves of these principles ( obligations). As objectively necessary ( it is an objective fact of being rational, an aspect of our rationaly human nature)
4.) however acting in accord with the objective recognition of obligation is subjectivley contingent
5.) we can be motivated by things other than the rational recognition of obligation
principle - obligation - comand - imperative
imperatives
hypothetical - directed at the attainment of some desired end
catagorical - act as if by your your actions the principles that underlies your action were therby to make a universal law
if a then b
if you can get some reward then lend a moral assistance
universability
practical : promising with no: intention  of keeping said promise is not universialisable
logical - promising implies keeping the promise
questions/ problems for kants deontology
might the principle motivating an actor be consieved in difering ways
e.g. - fee hungry children or stealing food
what about when competing principles are both in accord with the categorical imperative
3.) sometimes principle which violate the categorical imperative appear o be the right thing to e.g. lying

euthenasia
eu - good or happy
thanatos - death
passive : allowing someone to die
(with holding tratment)
active: a positive action resulting in death ( a lethal injection)
voulentary passive - is legally acceptable as ethical dnp, living wills
active unassisted coulentary_ suicide
active assisted voulentary - physicion assisted suicide ... legal in oregon , washington, ( murder possibly for assistant)
non- coulentary passive - legal in some contexts proxy - decisions requiring legal approval
non voulentary active assisted - possibly murder for both patient assistant: sverly defective newborns
life is sanctified
life is often viewed from a religious perspective as a gift from god
therfore its wishful disposable to god seen as an afront
the right to die
life is not " a gift" but as property... autonomous decision making self determination and the quality of life
kant an the "value of life"
"treat rational humanity always as an end in itself, never as a means to some other end
mere things - have a price : their value can be negotiated/calculated, etc. rational beings - have a dgnity they are beyond all calculations of price / value
" life is priceless'
costs
societally - 28% of medicare expenditures go to people in the last year of their lives
50% of that go to people in the last 2 months of life
individually- 60 % of persona bankrupcies caused by medical costs
what about people who can afford their own healthcare
james rachels
active/passive euthenasia
is there a distraction (deontologically) between killing/ letting die
consequentialist: In passive eutenasia what justifies allowing someone to die/ discontinuing treatement - e.g. terminally ill who is suffering ...
the individuals death is seen as the preffered consequence ... allowing someone to die can be a long, slow and painful process
smith/ jones
kill their nephews who inherit a small fortune smith drowns a kind and holds him under rhen jones was going to do the sam thing but the kid slipped and fell into the tub and jones doesn't do anything ( same intention, to bring death to the child)
with regard to passive v active  euthenasia
acting v not acting
linguistically usage: letting die: medical killing: negative
battin
argument from merly
two component duties
1- not to cause further suffering
2- act to end currently occuring suffering
argument from autonomy ( self determination )
currently accepted with regard to passive euthenasia
i.e. a right to die - should also justify a right to be killed
battin considers an objection to autonomy
sometimes the request for euthenasia may result in cognative imparment
paternalism their thinking may be impaired
depression, fear drug therapies, intimidation
concern financially, emotionally anxiety
paternalism - intervening in a persons choices ( contrast to autonamy)  for the persons sake ( e.g. when those choices result from impaired thinking)
1 - it would only show that some requests for euthenasia should be denied
2- occasionally even if made in an irrational fashipn may be the "correct" choice
3- we would have to "weigh" the pain and suffering those we deny active euthenasia to whether we're arguing in favor of an expansion or againstin favor of paternalism in either instance we're trying to determine what is in the persons interest
can we do this ( objectively)
battin's reply is yes
1.) if there is no indication of pain and suffering of the sort that would preclude beneficial experience, and there is no indication of cognitive imparment ... this persons life would to her
2.) If there is every indication or pain and suffering of that preclude the possibility of future beneficial experience this person's life can be easily be seen as a disbenefit to her