Many have mentioned that in there scripts they believe that we can’t control our life. They think that it is unreligious and inhumane to be allowing people to take charge of their life instead of god. many religious believe that god will control our death may we like it or not. If euthanasia is legalized it will most likely be in con... ... middle of paper ... ... turn into a huge chaos of people dying. Sincerely this way for looking for a non suffering death is very inhumane.
Entity Realism The truth about scientific unobservables has been argued about from two distinct sides, realists and anti-realists. I will argue that entity realism is the best way to show that entities exist. The scientific anti-realist believes that there is a difference between unobservable and observable entities. They believe that because there is no concrete evidence of unobservable entities and events, theories should not be taken to be true. This does not mean that anti-realists do not take all scientific theories to be false, but that they should only be considered empirically adequate.
The science of eugenics may be considered ethical as its end goal is to better future generations; leaving behind desirable traits such as health, intelligence, and noble character; inversely, it may be considered unethical as it aims to create a perfect or superhuman being, not only ignores but violates human rights, and may be used for racial and genetic hygiene; a form of discrimination. It is for this that eugenics is considered to be a great ethical and moral failure in modern society. Some claim that the ultimate goal of eugenics is a patriotic one; namely, to increase the commercial and fighting efficiency of a nation. Others, however, intend not to advocate it on these grounds, but would rather recommend it as a road to increased happiness; or, at any rate, as a means of preventing much unnecessary misery. Francis Galton whom coined the term defined eugenics as “the science of improvement of the human race germ plasm through “better breeding”’.
Those people also state that euthanasia has many more bad side effects in the long run. They believe that people would kill their parents faster just to get rid of them or to claim the insurance money sooner. Others say that euthanasia prevents people to see the value of suffering which may be something that god is trying to teach to all of us, if we commit euthanasia then we are turning are backs on god. Many people try to compare euthanasia with suicide but the fact remains that they are two totally different things and are carried out under extremely different circumstances. One author of a book about euthanasia stated that "Just as our society discourages suicide, it should discourage euthanasia because in both the person is running away from life and its responsibilities" (143).
While both opposing views presents reasonable and valid arguments, the critique of eugenics will be well-debated in the foreseeable future, and as we will examine, drawing a discrete line between these two positions is no simple task. In the book, The Lives to Come, Philip Kitcher presents his view of laissez-faire eugenics in which eugenic decisions should be made primarily by a minimal regulated market of individuals without any government coercion. In defending his position of minimalist and responsible eugenic decisions, Kitcher wants to avoid the dangers that accompany with a laissez-faire or parental free choice eugenic approach. One problem involves a systematic prejudice of society due to a lack of government regulation. Laissez-faire eugenics calls for total reproductive freedom in which parents are able to make decisions concerning what traits they want their children to have according to personal preferences (1, Kitcher, p.197).
It holds the underlying works of genetic testing, accurate information, open access, and freedom of choice. Laissez-faire eugenics promises to enhance reproductive freedom preventing early child death due to genetic disease (3,Kitcher, 198). However there are dangers in Laissez-faire that Kitcher wants to avoid. The first is the historical tendency of population control, eugenics can go from avoiding suffering, to catering to a set of social values that will cause the practice of genetics to become prejudiced, insensitive and superficial. The second is that prenatal testing will become limited to the upper class, leaving the lower class with fewer options, creating biologically driven social barriers.
"Multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species Charles Darwin, believe it or not played a huge role in the development of the holocaust. He played a role in the beliefs of the Nazi party. His theories is what they based their laws off of, they gave the Nazi's their thoughts of political beliefs. This leading to the Nazi's replacing the Judeo-christian Doctrine with Darwinism. Darwin's theories had a huge impact on how the jews were treated and how war was seen.
Steiner provides a strong statistic to continue his argument that even eating ethically treated animals is unethical. He asks the question, “And how can people continue to eat meat when they become aware that nearly 53 billion land animals are slaughtered every year for human consumption?” (197). Steiner is a firm believer in a completely vegan lifestyle; consuming animals products is unacceptable and using products made from animals is just as bad. Killing these animals is unnecessary and inhumane according to Steiner and that the current number of animals is absolutely ridiculous. As a non vegan, I can testify that I also believe that this number is quite high and could possibly be lower, but I do not take it to the extreme that Gary Steiner does.
In 1883, Galton named his research "eugenics" and to this day, it is looked at as a highly controversial topic. During the 20th century, eugenics was an extremely popular social movement; countries ev... ... middle of paper ... ...of making one’s life the best it can be, eugenics is still not completely proven or ethical. Through studies of recessive genes and spontaneous diseases—down syndrome—It is proven that eugenics simply cannot eradicate all undesirable traits. Also, because it usually involves the destruction of human lives, it is clearly irrefutably unethical. However, the most important argument against eugenics is the fight against a designer society.
Unfortunately, as is often the case, ascribing all (or most) vegetarians to specific camps is improper. One suspected position claims that it is wrong (or immoral) to eat meat-an act that obviously requires the slaughtering of the animal in question. Though some vegetarians hold to this position, I do not. While it is problematic that people eat excessive amounts of meat, eating meat isn't immoral in my view. And while I don't think meat eaters are somehow wrong, I certainly can understand and respect the position that eating meat is immoral.