Hi Girly girl,

Have you read at least some Kant or tried to find any information on him? The question rfutes itself in the manner that Kant stood for the things-in-themselves, which is to say that it defies judgements and therewith predications. So stating what he stands for is, in that sense, always incorrect.

I bet that his counsel would be that suicide does not change the thing-in-itself, nor does it change the person-in-itself. So it would

Think whether the categorical imperative applies to the example: So act that your actions can be universalised by everyone.

Well put jgweed.

But Kant does not give a moral imperative. He says that any rational being has it. Rationality demands to act on maximes that doesn't interfere with itself from a universal point of view.

For example: If suicide would be allowed for everyone, that would interfere with the existance of mankind. That means that the maxim, suicide would be allowed, is self-contradictory.

Check out Kant's correspondance with Maria Von Herbert; it demonstrates a weakness in his moral guidelines. It's quite funny at points, but also quite moving and really hits the mark. It should answer a lot of your questions.

Maria von Herbert's Challenge to Kant