For my paper, I'm planning on arguing against Kant's philosophy; namely, his categorical imperative. My main argument will be that Kant’s categorical imperative places too much focus on rationality and ignores the importance of consequences of actions in moral decision-making. More specifically, it cannot account for the complex situations–that we have created as an evolving society–which grapple with the outcome of a person’s life. For my exhibits, I'm planning on focusing on the most prevalent of these complex situations in our world: the death penalty and end-of-life care (for both terminally-ill patients and senior citizens in general). My discussion on euthanasia will cover the question of: when is a patient too sick to keep treating them (when should we let them die in peace instead of let them live in agony?). My discussion on end-of-life care for senior citizens will cover the debate of how much autonomy should we be giving these people. That is, should we restrict them to a nursing home where they are potentially safer, or let them live on their own?
For my contemporary interlocutor, I'd like to include ideas from Atul Gawande, an American surgeon, writer, and public health researcher, who wrote "Being Mortal." This book essentially emphasizes the importance of compassionate care, patient autonomy, and quality of life during aging and end-of-life stages. I will use his ideas, as well as the exhibits I listed above, in order to argue against the validity of Kant's categorical imperative. Some key ways in which these exhibits challenge the categorical imperative is their emphasis on subjectivity, complexity of moral decision-making, and critique of a doctor's paternalism and authoritarianism. However, I will also acknowledge that these exhibits can also support Kant's categorical imperative, as they recognize the respect for autonomy, dignity and humanity, and consideration of the universalizability of principles.