Moral Philosophy: Euthanasia
Euthanasia has been a hotly debated topic, off and on, for several decades. Public opinion was enflamed by the case of Dr. Kevorkian, in which the doctor claimed to be helping people claim their right to a dignified death. Euthanasia, also termed assisted suicide, has colored the moral discussions of individuals since the time of early philosophers. In taking a view point, people usually choose a philosophy based on their personal ethic. Either they say that no one has the right to choose the time they die, or they say that it is based on the utility of the decision. Whether that person takes the extreme Kantian view or the utilitarian, they have made a decision that can have consequences for others besides themselves. This essay will outline the philosophies of Kant and the Utilitarians, discuss how they look at euthanasia, and give an opinion as to the correctness of either stance.
Philosophers generally look at a question, without regard to the question, from all angles. Kant did not decide upon the justifiability of a question based on the ethics of the decision. He believed in a direct cause and effect based on the morality of the question. He said that because it is impossible for the...
The other stance, utilitarianism, has a different method of determining the right and wrong of a decision. They have a belief in the pleasure vs. pain principle. If an action will cause pain then would say that a person should not do it. If an action will cause pleasure then that should be the thing to do. They do believe in looking at the consequences of an action. For example, they would look at unprotected sex, even though there is pleasure involved, as a poor decision because of the possible pain of either an unwanted pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease. Thus, both Kant and the Utilitarians expressed opinions with regard to euthanasia.
Kant stated that he was not a believer in the practice of suicide. Looking at his cause and effect argument it is easy to see why. Euthanasia has the intended effect of eliminating the suffering that a person endures, but that cannot be a certainty. What if a hell-type afterlife truly exists? Kant also believed that there are moral absolutes. Sometimes an action, or even a thought is wrong, because reason deems that is wrong. Kant's view stems from a belief in moral imperatives. People do not act morally because they want to, but because they should. Morals go beyond desires. If an action is correct because it is the moral action, then despite what a person desires, they should take the moral course. In the case of suicide, it has already been established that Kant thought that it was morally wrong. It does not matter that a person is in pain, or that they want to die. The morality of the question trumps every other consideration. Since killing oneself…
Moral Philosophy Ethical Theories on Animals. The treatment of animals has historically evolved along with human beings' changing views of them. A number of theories trace this changing treatment to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic times when people exercised absolute dominion over animals (Sanders 2004). It was their religious belief that God gave man absolute dominion over animals and to do to them as he pleased or estimated. French philosopher Rene Descartes and other
Review the Feldman reading this week about euthanasia and assisted suicide as well as the online article on Christ's physical death. Many argue that assisted suicide or euthanasia is justified because it relieves a person from suffering. What are your thoughts about euthanasia, given what Christ did for us? If I had the liberty of being perfectly honest about my own genuine response to the issue, I would have to admit
Euthanasia (active and Passive) A Moral Philosophy Paper Euthanasia is the practice of ending a person's life for the sole purpose of relieving the person's body from excruciating pain and suffering due to an incurable disease. The term euthanasia is often referred as mercy killing or the 'good death' as derived from the Greek. Euthanasia can be classified into four categories. In active euthanasia, a person's life is terminated by a doctor
The philosophy for example recognizes that more than one person is involved in the euthanasia process. The person in most physical distress is the one afflicted with illness and requiring euthanasia as a solution. What deontology does not recognize is the suffering of family members. Consequentialism also considers the suffering of family members, who are emotionally and mentally distressed by observing the long-term suffering of the ill person. They
There are many other related reasons for arguing against euthanasia and its acceptance or legalization. One is that it contradicts the medical code of ethics and the Hippocratic Oath, which, "…expressly forbids the giving of deadly medicine to anyone who asks" (Cauthen). The argument that euthenasia is an act of compassion and mercy can also be contradicted. There are many drugs available today that can be used to control pain;
The findings reveal that the pain is unbearable yet the patients tend to become immune from it, or at least surrender to it. The purpose of this article as it relates to the topic of euthanasia is that one popular argument for the legalization of euthanasia is that it is inhumane to let a patient suffer. This study attempts to validate this argument by showing what exactly the patient