Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

Many would agree that human life is a gift granted from God. However, for every life that is being given, another life must be taken away. The cost of taking a life is a serious and controversial matter. The purpose behind the act of disconnecting one from the physical world must be legitimate as well as the consequences that follow. Among a myriad of ways in which an individual can die, one that is currently being debated about is Euthanasia. Euthanasia is defined as the process of putting an end to an individual’s life to discontinue his/her suffering from a terminal illness. Other methods of killing such as murder and suicide are immediately deemed as immoral and inhumane by society. Euthanasia cannot be labeled as right or wrong

On the other hand, the happiness of others related to the dying individual also must be addressed as well. Another key factor of utilitarianism supporting Euthanasia is the amount of benefit for the majority that will result from killing the dying person. A specific action can only be valuable when it brings forth the most happiness for the greatest amount of people (Wilkens, 2011). For instance, if the family of the dying person feels mentally disturbed by seeing their loved one in constant pain, then Euthanasia will aid them by killing the individual to end their emotional suffering. Utilitarianism relays that an act is ethically correct when the happiness of the most amount of people is achieved from its effects (Wilkens, 2011). Thus, if the act affects both the dying individual and his/her family positively, then it has accomplished its job in the best potential way.

From a broad perspective, Kantian Ethics states that human beings must always have a moral responsibility to carry out their moral obligations. It can generally be assumed that since life itself is embedded in the

Among these contradicting viewpoints is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism relays that the beliefs which one withholds is shaped and influenced by the society in which one lives. In other words, if an individual supports the right to die, it is difficult convince others when his/her society already delineates Euthanasia as an illegal deed. To be considered as a cultural member, one must conform with the rules of a society. The opinions and preferences of that individual do not have much significance in impacting the whole of the society. “Although ethical standards differ from one place to the next, to preserve social order people are obligated to follow the norms of the culture in which they live in” (Wilkens, 2011, pg. 29). The opinions of the majority overpower the opinions of the minorities in a society. Thus, it is with traditional regard that the morale of the majority represents the entirety of the nation. If Euthanasia is disapproved of by a nation’s majority, then it is culturally denoted as unacceptable. For example, the United States has inherited a wide variety of people with unique ethnicities and traditional practices over time. America does not identify with a single culture; it identifies with a plethora of cultures, ranging from those of Native Americans, African Americans,