In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that it is wrong to commit suicide, and later in the Metaphysics of Morals he suggests that even donating non-vital organs or parts of one’s body, such as a tooth is immoral. Given this, it seems clear that Kant would find Elizabeth Bouvia’s repeated attempts at starvation wrong. Yet, one might argue that she should have been allowed to starve for utilitarian considerations. Not only did she endure a grave deal of unnecessary suffering, her medical care was quite costly. This expense was felt by everyone. Given this, one might wonder if Kant would be right about the case of Elizabeth Bouvia.

1. Read: The Case of Elizabeth Bouvia

2. Prompt: Is Kant right? Were Bouvia’s repeated attempts at starvation wrong?

In addressing this question, you must do the following:

(1) Provide a brief overview of the relevant aspects of the case. Don’t assume your reader is familiar with the story of Elizabeth Bouvia.

(2) Explain why Kant would conclude that Bouvia’s repeated attempts at suicide would be wrong. Yes, Kant claims that suicide is wrong in both works previously mentioned. However, it’s not enough to simply note that Kant thinks suicide is wrong. Instead, you must explain why he comes to this conclusion. Hence, your discussion should include an explanation of key concepts, ideas or principles like the categorical imperative, persons, reason, inclination, etc.

(3) Provide a rigorous evaluation of the Kantian argument for why Bouvia’s repeated attempts at starvation were wrong. Here you should consider an objection to the claim that Bouvia’s attempts at starvation were wrong. Then assess the strengths and weaknesses of the objection.