An Analysis Of 'The Morality Of Euthanasia'

703 Words2 Pages

In the essay “The Morality of Euthanasia”, James Rachels uses what he calls the argument from mercy. Rachels states, “If one could end the suffering of another being—the kind from which we ourselves would recoil, about which we would refuse to read or imagine—wouldn’t one?” He cites a Stewart Alsop’s story in which he shares a room with a terminally ill cancer patient who he named Jack. At the end of the recounting, Alsop basically asks, “were this another animal, would not we see to it that it doesn’t suffer more than it should?” Which opens up the question of, “Why do humans receive special treatment when we too are animals?” We would not let animals suffer when there is a low chance of survival, so why is it different for us humans? Rachels …show more content…

For example he claims “Any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the world or to decrease the amount of misery. Conversely, action or social policy is morally wrong if it serves to decrease happiness or to increase misery.” Also Rachels states “The policy of killing, at their own request, hopelessly ill patients who are suffering great pain would decrease the amount of misery in the world. Therefore, such a policy would be morally right.” Rachels brings up the usual objections against utilitarianism. How the principle of utility is highly controversial. In particular, it conflicts with our idea of rights, and of honor. If we go to the extreme, it seems that the argument above could make involuntary euthanasia right. Since if the amount of happiness is increased enough by terminating a patient, even if this patient does not want to die. And obviously this is an unacceptable thing to do in our society. In …show more content…

If an action is in the best interests of everyone involved and violates no one’s rights, then that action is considered morally acceptable. In some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights. Therefore, in certain cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable. On the other hand, the second idea is again troubling. For example, how does one go about determining what is everyone’s best interests are? If one would refer back to the principle of utility, then the argument fails for the reasons which Rachels talked about, and for the ones I described above. Maybe there is an out, and considering that he is using a utilitarian argument, he may argue that “best interests” may in fact not have to be objective. However, this may make the argument even more unsound since if we have no objective standards, how are we to determine what the best interests are? Even if we use objective standards, which one top the other? Even though the family may not have deal with the high hospital bills, but they now have to deal with the death of a loved one. While I do agree with the argument from mercy and the plan of active euthanasia in general, Rachels does a good job of using a pathos appeal. And this could be Rachels’ most powerful argument in his

Open Document