More handpicked essays just for you.
Involuntary euthanasia arguments for and against ethics
Utilitarianism vs deontology compare
Involuntary euthanasia arguments for and against ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Rachels includes the utilitarian version of the argument as utilitarians believe that actions are judged right or wrong exclusively to the happiness or misery they produce, thus by their theory making euthanasia morally acceptable. The utilitarian argument is described as follows: 1. Any action is morally right if its purpose is to increase the amount of happiness or decrease the amount of misery. An action is wrong if it serves to do the opposite. 2. Hopelessly ill patients requesting their own killing would in turn decrease the amount of misery in the world. 3. As a result, making such policy morally right. However, Rachels argues that the utilitarian approach could be an inadequate support for a defense of euthanasia. He asks what if a
Utilitarianism argues that, we need to consider how much overall happiness of the action could bring, considering everyone involved. For example, how will Brittany’s choice for euthanasia affect her husband, friend, and parents? In Craig’s case, how will his choice for euthanasia affect his wife, son, and daughter? In both of their cases, that devastation that they will die is already difficult for them, and their families. Craig’ wife and his two children were sad that he was making the decision to die before his illness consumed him. Her daughter speaks on how hard it was for her, and in a sense relieved, she was not present when her father took his own life. Brittany was a newlywed, it was extremely sad for her husband and brother in law to know she was taking her life beforehand. To make a choice an act-utilitarian would need to balance out the overall happiness compared to the suffering. Both Brittany and Craig will eventually die. If they both let their terminal illness progress they would inflict extreme suffering on themselves and their family as they witnessed their pain. In Craig’s case, his illness will get worst it will cause paralysis. His major concern was on how would he be able to let
Bibliography:.. Bernard, Neal, Ed. & Co. d. a. a. a. a. a. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints Series, Series Eds. David L. Bender and Bruno Leone.
According to consequentialist theory, a right action is one that maximizes the good. Utility, or the greatest happiness principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” The greatest happiness principle also holds that the right action increases total amount of utility in the world: “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent 's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 5). The principle of Utility states that “…happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain…” (Mill 2). An action is right if it maximizes the good, that being happiness, as it is the only thing that is
Singer’s article focuses on classic hedonistic utilitarianism, and questions why patients are not given the option for assisted suicide in some states and countries. His question is a double edged sword for the philosophy; ending the ability to let an individual think freely is irrational, yet taking away someone’s autonomy is just as bad.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
The ethical utilitarianism theory is when the moral rightness of an action or activity can be determined by looking at its consequences. The consequences are determined right or wrong depending on whether the outcome is favorable than more unfavorable by those who are affected by the action or activity. So this means as long as the actions or activity that are performed bring out the most happiness and pleasure overall, the action is then considered morally and ethically right, but if the action brings sadness and displeasure then the action or activity is wrong. There is another way ethical utilitarianism is looked at, which is when the action or activity is judged by the people involved are
An action is morally good if and only if it promotes my personal happiness and it is morally wrong if and only if that action hinders my personal happiness.
In “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” Judith Thomson confronts the moral dilemma of how death comes about, whether one meets their demise through natural causes or by the hands of another (Shafer-Landau 544). If one does in fact lose their life through the action or inaction of another person, a second dilemma must also be considered. Does it matter whether a person was killed or simply allowed to die? The moral debate that arises from these issues is important because if forms opinions that ultimately sets the tone for what is socially acceptable behavior. Social issue such as legalization of euthanasia, abortions, and the distribution of medical resources all hinge on the “killing vs letting die problem”.
Euthanasia is a serious political, moral and ethics issues in society. People either strictly forbid or firmly favor euthanasia. Terminally ill patients have a fatal disease from which they will never recover, many will never sleep in their own bed again. Many beg health professionals to “pull the plug” or smother them with a pillow so that they do not have to bear the pain of their disease so that they will die faster. Thomas D. Sullivan and James Rachels have very different views on the permissibility of active and passive euthanasia. Sullivan believes that it is impermissible for the doctor, or anyone else to terminate the life of a patient but, that it is permissible in some cases to cease the employment of “extraordinary means” of preserving
In Sullivan versus Rachel’s on euthanasia I will show that James Rachel’s argument is logically stronger than Sullivan’s argument. I will present examples given by both authors regarding their arguments and also on their conclusions about it. I will explain both of the author’s logical strengths and weaknesses in their arguments. I will give the examples given by both authors on how they prove their arguments to be true and later I will decide whose argument is stronger based on their strengths and weaknesses. I will give one of Rachel’s main strong arguments and one of Sullivan’s very weak arguments. I will also show if both of the author’s premises follow from the conclusion. And at the end I will give my opinion on my personal reasons on whose I think makes more sense in presenting their arguments.
Rachels’ first premise is, “passive euthanasia (i.e., withholding treatment) is permissible in part because it ends a patient’s suffering”. He then supports this premise by providing a quote from the American Medical Association. This quote essentially states that the intentional killing of one human being by another (in this case, active euthanasia) goes against the AMA and is therefore wrong. The cessation of necessary treatment to prolong the life of the body by the patient or the immediate family (passive euthanasia) when there is irrefutable evidence that biological death is imminent, however, is permissible. His second premise is that “active euthanasia is a more efficient and humane means to ending the patient’s suffering than passive euthanasia.” To defend this claim, Rachel gives the case of a patient with incurable throat cancer. This patient is sure to die in a matter of days even if treatment is continued. The patient does not wish to live on in agony and asks the doctor to cease treatment. The doctor ag...
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
We arrive into this world without a choice; and depart just the same. In the movie “Million Dollar Baby”, Maggie Fitzgerald’s fictional character is a prime example active euthanasia. Maggie’s decision to die is morally acceptable, but it is not ethically acceptable by philosopher James Rachels’ argument. Maggie’s decision was not ethically permissible because she violated Kant’s categorical imperative “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end” by asking her trainer, Frankie Dunn, to kill her. Rachels’ argument shows that Maggie’s euthanasia, her decision to die, was morally acceptable. However, Rachels’ never mentions ethics in his argument on the “Morality of Euthanasia”. We cannot conclude from Rachels’ argument that Maggie’s choice was ethically acceptable. James Rachels’ argument on euthanasia does not render Maggie’s Fitzgerald’s decision to die, ethically acceptable.
On the other hand, the proposition has previously argued that Euthanasia spares a terminally ill person from suffering intolerable pain and that it is cruel to deny a person’s right to die. We believe It is not our choice when or how to conclude our lives as we owe our lives to God and to God. If it was God’s plan for us to suffer, then we must obey. his orders. We believe that there may be value in a person’s