Ethical Egoism and the Morality of Euthanasia

Right or Wrong? Euthanasia

Introduction

In 2000 veteran actor Richard Farnsworth at the age of 80 took his own life rather than allow cancer to consume his final days and force him to become a burden to his family (AP). The news was shocking to some fans of the beloved series Anne of Green Gables, in which Farnsworth had starred as the beloved surrogate father to the eponymous heroine. But others, like comedian Norm Macdonald lauded the star, saying it was noble of him to make that decision for himself and for his family, regardless of what critics thought (Smith). Opponents of euthanasia, which is (in most states) the illegal doctor-assisted suicide of a person, claim that it is immoral and unjustified from an ethical perspective—leading people like Farnsworth to take drastic measures to end their lives. Opponents note that suicide is never justified, and arguments from various ethical perspectives—from virtue ethics to deontology to utilitarianism—are used to support their claims. But from the standpoint of Ethical Egoism, which appeals to many in today’s relativistic world, suicide can be seen as a logical act that makes sense for some, like those in Farnsworth’s position. It is the thesis of this paper that, from the standpoint of Ethical Egoism, euthanasia should be legal and available to those who seek that option for themselves. This paper will prove this thesis by explaining ethical egoism, considering the most common objection to this ethical theory, and rebutting it using a simple illustration.

Ethical Egoism

What is Ethical Egoism? When most people consider ethical theories, they think of the good, or of a universal standard or rule that should be or that one can apply in any given situation. In deontology, actions are considered moral to the extent that they conform to the duties and responsibilities one has according to his state in life. In utilitarianism, actions are considered moral to the extent that they yield the greatest common good. In virtue ethics, actions are considered moral to the extent that they contribute to the development of the character in accordance with universal ideals (Holmes). What all of these theories have in common is that they rely to some extent upon a general, objective understanding of what is good. But what happens in a world where there is no general understanding of a universal ideal? Where there is no agreed-upon sense of what is good for all? When what works for one does not work for another? What is one to think of morality when everyone has, for his own reference point, only his own situation, needs, and desires to go upon? In today’s world of relativism, the final arbiter of morality is the individual, which is why Ethical Egoism is so popular today: in Ethical Egoism, actions are considered moral to the extent that they conform to one’s own self-interest.

Ethical Egoism is the theory that applies best to the issue of euthanasia because it is a theory that emphasizes personal choice and the self-interest of the individual. Other ethical theories emphasize an exalted good, ideal, standard, or rule; they do not necessarily take into consideration the desire of the individual and the reasons he might have for wanting to make a particular choice regarding his own person. Ethical Egoism emphasizes the relativity of morality and instead of looking for an objective standard by which society might judge it essentially posits that every person should be his own judge and should determine his own course.

In the case of euthanasia, a person chooses to end his own life for whatever reason. He seeks a doctor to assist in that process so that it is as dignified as possible. In the case of Farnsworth, described above, there was no question of obtaining a doctor for this service because of the fact that it is illegal. Had it been a legal option, Farnsworth could have died in a more controlled and dignified manner rather than using the instruments of death (a shotgun) on himself to terminate his life. He himself made the conscious decision, as noted in his suicide note: he did not want to be a burden on his family as the cancer (which was terminal) took over and made it impossible for him to care for himself (AP).

Ethical Egoism would say that Farnsworth acted morally and rightly: he made the decision regarding his own person; it was a decision that he believed to be best for himself and for his family. The only problem he ran into was that euthanasia was not an option at the time. The practice in California was not approved until 2015 by then-Governor Jerry Brown; but in 2018 the law allowing euthanasia was overturned by Judge Ottolia (Neuman). Thus, California is back to square one, and people like Farnsworth, who want to make that decision for themselves, are unable to do so legally, and therefore must resort to violent and startling methods. If the Judge had recognized Ethical Egoism as the most valid ethical theory on this matter, he might not have overturned the law. Even though many people ascribe to Ethical Egoism in their everyday lives, it is still viewed askance by people in authority when it comes to determining what is right and wrong for others.

Objection and Rebuttal

Those who oppose euthanasia may not consider the self-interest of the person what would like to have doctor-assisted suicide as an option. They simply note that doctors are supposed to help preserve and maintain life. Their objection is this: doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, and this oath does not permit them the right to help anyone terminate his own life.

The problem with this objection is that it is the essence of legal moralism. The individual making this objection does not stop to consider the individual preference of the person suffering or the motives he might have for wanting to end his situation here on Earth. There is only regard for the rigid code that gets applied in every situation. From their perspective, black is black, white is white, and there is no gray. There is no consideration given to the self-interest of the individual.

Legal moralism lends to collectivist thinking, denying the individual person the right to determine for his own self whether his actions are moral and good. The perfect illustration of this problem is found in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, when a farm is taken over by totalitarian pigs, who flaunt their own righteousness and implement a system of legal moralism that denies other animals the right to think and act for themselves. The end result is a total disaster: the legal moralists live like kings, while the other animals suffer crushing oppression and neglect. None is permitted to act in accordance with what he believes to be good for himself. Only the pigs assert this right. They are happy because they are Ethical Egoists—everyone else is miserable because they are forced to live in a system of legal moralism that denies them the use of their own Egos.

Conclusion