The moral standing and implications of Robert’s decision to kill Virginia can be seen from two different viewpoints of the philosophers Mill and Kant. Whereas Kant disagrees with Euthanasia, Mill however favors Active Euthanasia. Both present several arguments and considerations that could apply to Robert’s case and the debate of his actions being morally right or wrong. Amongst such theories, I agree with Mill’s utilitarian perspectives siding with Active Euthanasia.
In order for one to be able to assert that assisted suicide is morally right or wrong, Mill and Kant’s theories need to be dissected. For Kant, the outcome of an action is not relevant to whether or not it is ethical. This can easily be demonstrated - sometimes evil actions lead to unintended good consequences. He also disagreed with making moral choices out of compassion, kindness etc. It is also easy to give an example of where kindness leads to doing the wrong thing (the road to hell is paved with good intentions). The only right thing is to do what reason dictates. When considering euthanasia, then, Kant will not be interested in the level of suffering of the patient or relatives. He would not agree that we should do the loving thing. He would work out what the right thing to do was. Universalizing the maxim "Robert should help Virginia to die" would give a universal law that everyone should be helped to die - a self-contradiction. If you took the maxim "Robert should help Virginia, who is terminally ill, suffering unbearably and desperate to die, to die" one might create a more acceptable universal rule such as "Anyone who is terminally and incurably ill, suffering greatly and has freely chosen to die, should be helped to die".
Kant, however, provides us with a very different perspective to consider. His theories on mortality are derived from the Greek "deontology," which means obligation. Kant, often hard to understand, has many different terms for different things. The one that I see fit...