The Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

1289 Words3 Pages

When it comes to discussing accountability for an action, it is common for one to argue whether or not there is a moral difference between doing an action and allowing that same action to happen. Some argue that there is a very clear difference between the two, while others argue that the distinction between the two depends on the agent in question’s relationship to the sequence of events that brought about an outcome. It seems that one cannot be responsible for the outcome of something they are not involved with; but it can be also be argued that allowing an event to occur bears the same moral responsibility as doing that action, because they both bring about the same result. So, is there a clearly defined line between doing and allowing that provides us with a morally right and wrong answer? One popular example of doing vs allowing that is still being debated today is whether or not Euthanasia, or “mercy killing” is right or wrong, and how it differs from the practice of withdrawing medical treatment to bring about a patient’s death. It can be argued that actively killing a patient through euthanasia is morally equivalent to withdrawing medical care and allowing a patient to die, since both sequences of events bring about the same result. Although it is popular to believe that actively acting with the intention to kill another person is always wrong, it can argued that euthanasia is not wrong, and sometimes is right, because it allows for a patient to maintain their dignity, die a peaceful death, and put an end to their pain and suffering. One of the most popular arguments when considering doing vs allowing is the argument that there is a clear distinction between doing an action to bring about a consequence and a consequence ... ... middle of paper ... ...ie. Counterarguments have also been proposed, all with different bases that vary from religious opposition to individual rights, but the primary argument that there is a difference between letting die and euthanasia just an argument for the sake of arguing, because even though the methods differ, they bring about the same mean. The distinction between doing and allowing can be made, but the moral applications of it vary based on the situation to which they are applied. It can be argued, though, that when doing and allowing both bring about the same consequence, there is no moral difference in which action is chosen. Even though many different distinctions can be made between how doing and allowing bring about different sequences, they both bring about the same means; therefore, logical reasoning and a level head must be used to evaluate the right course of action.

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

    1401 Words  | 3 Pages

    There’s an argument on if euthanasia opposes the sanctity of life. Euthanasia has caused society to lose the respect for the sanctity of life. According to bbc.com, “There are four main reasons why people think we shouldn't kill human beings: All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement. Human life is a basic good as opposed to an instrumental good, a good in itself rather than as a means to an end. Human life is sacred because it's a gift from God. Therefore the deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in self-defence or the legitimate defence of others. The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that rational human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has value in itself. Our inherent value doesn't depend on anything else - it doesn't depend on whether we are having a good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other people's lives better. We exist, so we have value. Most of us agree with that - though we don't put it in philosopher-speak. We say that we don't think that we should use other people - which is a plain English way of saying that we shouldn't treat other people as a means...

    Read More

  • Comparing James Rachel's Article 'Active And Passive Euthanasia'

    834 Words  | 2 Pages

    Between on what action we take (harming), and what we fail to do (failing to help). I think there is no difference in between doing someone harm and allowing it to happen. At the end, the intentions were the same. Nesbitt might say that killing someone is worse than letting someone die but the fact is that motives were the same, a killer verses bystander killer. It is claimed that if a doctor personally kills a patient and a doctor who withholds a treatment that results in death, they are both responsible for two

    Read More

  • Rule Consequentialism And Kantian Ethics

    990 Words  | 2 Pages

    The basis of this paper is centered around two somewhat conflicting moral theories that aim to outline two ways of ethical thinking. The theory behind both rule consequentialism and Kantian ethics will be compared and evaluated. These theories can then be applied to a relatively complex moral case known as the “Jim and the Indians” example.

    Read More

  • Assignment 1 “When Is “Everybody’s Doing It” A Moral Justification?” Ronald M. Green

    1836 Words  | 4 Pages

    There are two ways by which it can be determined whether is justified to use the “but everybody else is doing it” claim; logically dealing with a situation, and the second way is to go through the five steps of permit immoral behaviour.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

    1153 Words  | 3 Pages

    Should euthanasia be allowed or not? It has become a very controversial issue nowadays. Velleman and Hooker have different perspectives on euthanasia, and whether there should be laws permitting voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. Although there are well-reasoned arguments on both sides, I would strongly agree with Hooker's argument that there should be a law permitting voluntary euthanasia when it is for the wellbeing of the person and that each individual should be able to make their own decision.

    Read More

  • Rachels And Nesbitt On Active Euthanasia

    1202 Words  | 3 Pages

    There are many different stances one can take when considering active euthanasia versus passive euthanasia. Perhaps one may believe killing someone is far worse than letting someone die, or that there is no difference between killing and letting die. Rachels and Nesbit have different stances on killing versus letting die, both using the nasty cousins argument as an example. Rachels tries to show that there is no difference between killing and letting die and Nesbitt tries to show that killing is worse than letting die. Though Rachels and Nesbitt have well thought through views and examples, perhaps there is not just one side a reader can take, as it seems Rachels and Nesbitt have tried to make their readers believe. Perhaps both views are okay

    Read More

  • The Pros and Cons of Euthanasia

    1265 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Euthanasia is defined as a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending life of another person to relieve that person's suffering and where the act is the cause of death.”(Gupta, Bhatnagar and Mishra) Some define it as mercy killing. Euthanasia may be voluntary, non voluntary and involuntary. When terminally ill patient consented to end his or her life, it is called voluntary euthanasia. Non voluntary euthanasia occurs when the suffering person never consented nor requested to end a life. These patients are incompetent to decide because they are either minor, in a comatose stage or have mental conditions. Involuntary euthanasia is conducted when it is against the will of the patient (Gupta, Bhatnagar, Mishra). Euthanasia can be either passive or active. Passive euthanasia means life-sustaining treatments are withheld and nothing is done to keep the patient alive. Active euthanasia occurs when a physician do something by giving drugs or substances that ends a patient’s life. (Medical News Today)

    Read More

  • Consequentialist And Categorical Reasoning In Michael Sandel's Moral

    1918 Words  | 4 Pages

    During Michael Sandel’s lecture, the two moral reasoning’s he described was Consequentialist and Categorical moral reasoning. According to Sandel, Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequence of an act, while Categorical moral reasoning located morality in certain duties and rights. (Harvard University (Producer), n.d.)

    Read More

  • Consequentialism Vs. Rule-Utilitarianism

    1292 Words  | 3 Pages

    Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.

    Read More

  • Active And Passive Euthanasia Analysis

    1018 Words  | 3 Pages

    In James Rachels’ article, “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, Rachels discusses and analyzes the moral differences between killing someone and letting someone die. He argues that killing someone is not, in itself, worse than letting someone die. James, then, supports this argument by adding several examples of cases of both active and passive euthanasia and illustrating that there is no moral difference. Both the end result and motive is the same, therefore the act is also the same. I will argue that there is, in fact, no moral difference between killing someone and intentionally letting a person die. I plan to defend this thesis by offering supporting examples and details of cases of both active and passive euthanasia.

    Read More

  • Is rule-utilitarianism preferable to act-utilitarianism

    1769 Words  | 4 Pages

    Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • Euthanasia Pros And Cons

    959 Words  | 2 Pages

    Physician-Assisted Suicide is assisted suicide from a physician to a person to make it as painless and dignified as possible. There is also Euthanasia, which is to end a person life so they don’t have to go through any more pain and suffering without the patients consent. As of right now, only Montana, Oregon, Vermont and Washington have legalized Physician-Assisted suicide. To be eligible for Physician-assisted suicide, a patient must have a terminally ill disease. There are many pros and cons in this if you are having unbearable pain and want to end the suffering.

    Read More

  • Is Government Ban on Tobacco Wrong?

    997 Words  | 2 Pages

    Government passes law to the society to prevent the risk factor that is of significant harm to their health or life. Some of those activities that cause risk are drinking and driving, use of dangerous weapons. We notice that these activities pose a risk to others who are not engaged in these activities. But there are activities that pose a danger to the participant who engage in them. For example, drinking, smoking, rock climbing. Since all states follow freedom, the state cannot pass laws that forbid consenting adults from participating in such activities just because they cause harm to them. A person engaging in an activity with full knowledge of the risks involved is morally justified. It is morally wrong to get into a person’s freedom just to prevent him from harming himself.

    Read More

  • The Difference Between Killing And Letting Die

    988 Words  | 2 Pages

    590). Therefore, Nesbitt claims there is a moral difference between killing and letting die. Nesbitt argues the difference thesis: that killing is morally worse then simply letting someone die (Nesbitt, p. 590). Nesbitt uses claims against Rachels to argue that in fact that killing is worse than letting die. Nesbitt states, "It would be generally accepted, I think, quite independently of the present debate, that someone who is fully prepared to perform a reprehensible action, in the expectation of certain circumstances, but does not do so because the expected circumstances do not eventuate, is just as reprehensible as someone who actually performs that action in those circumstances" (Nesbitt, p. 591). With this being said, someone who is prepared to do a wrong action in expectations of something, but does not do so because the expectations do not occur as a result is just as wrong as someone that performs the wrong action. Yet, Nesbitt claims that this does not provide strong enough evidence that letting someone die is as blameworthy as killing someone. Lastly Nesbitt states, "[W]hich is to say that killing is indeed morally worse than letting die" (Nesbitt, p. 593). Altogether, Nesbitt opposes that there is no moral differences between killing someone and letting

    Read More

  • Discussion of The Issues Raised in Meta-Ethics

    1453 Words  | 3 Pages

    presents a clearer idea about what is held to be right or wrong; so, a

    Read More

More about The Pros And Cons Of Euthanasia

Open Document