Ethical Egoism and the Case for Legal 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 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 practice of doctor-assisted suicide — claim that it is immoral and unjustified from an ethical perspective, leading people like Farnsworth to take drastic measures to end their lives. Opponents argue that suicide is never justified, and they draw upon various ethical perspectives — from virtue ethics to deontology to utilitarianism — 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, such as 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 support this thesis by explaining Ethical Egoism, considering the most common objection to this ethical theory, and rebutting that objection using a concrete illustration.

What Is Ethical Egoism?

When most people consider ethical theories, they think of a universal standard or rule that can be applied to any given situation. In deontology, actions are considered moral to the extent that they conform to the duties and responsibilities one has according to one's station 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 character in accordance with universal ideals (Holmes). What all of these theories share is that they rely, to some extent, on a general and objective understanding of what is good.

But what happens in a world where there is no agreed-upon sense of what is good for all — where what works for one person does not work for another? When the only available reference point is one's own situation, needs, and desires? In today's climate of moral relativism, the final arbiter of morality is often the individual. This is why Ethical Egoism resonates so widely: in Ethical Egoism, actions are considered moral to the extent that they conform to one's own self-interest.

Ethical Egoism Applied to Euthanasia

Ethical Egoism is the theory that applies most naturally to the issue of euthanasia because it 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 account the desires of the individual or the reasons he might have for wanting to make a particular choice regarding his own life. Ethical Egoism, by contrast, emphasizes the relativity of morality and, rather than seeking an objective standard by which society might judge an action, 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 and seeks a doctor to assist in that process so that it is as dignified as possible. In Farnsworth's case, there was no possibility of obtaining a doctor for this service because it was illegal. Had euthanasia been a legal option, Farnsworth could have died in a more controlled and dignified manner rather than using a shotgun to terminate his life. He made the conscious decision himself — as noted in his suicide note — that he did not want to be a burden on his family as the terminal cancer progressed and made it impossible for him to care for himself (AP).

Ethical Egoism would hold that Farnsworth acted morally and rightly: he made the decision regarding his own person, a decision he believed to be best for himself and for his family. The only problem he encountered was that euthanasia was not a legal option at the time. The practice in California was not approved until 2015 by then-Governor Jerry Brown, but in 2018 the law permitting euthanasia was overturned by Judge Ottolia (Neuman). California thus returned to square one, and people like Farnsworth, who wish to make that decision for themselves, are unable to do so legally and must therefore resort to violent and undignified methods. If the judge had recognized Ethical Egoism as the most valid ethical framework on this matter, he might not have overturned the law. Even though many people act according to Ethical Egoism in their everyday lives, it is still regarded with suspicion by those in authority when it comes to determining what is right and wrong for others.

Conclusion

Many people tend to think of right and wrong in terms of how it applies to their own situation, yet when it comes to writing laws, those in authority tend to rely upon other ethical theories to establish a system of legal moralism. In today's world, however, people tend to act according to the theory of Ethical Egoism, even if they do not always recognize it. They justify their own actions based on the belief that a certain course is good for them, regardless of whether it is approved by others. People pick and choose which religious tenets they want to accept; they pick and choose which laws they want to obey — some people, for instance, see no harm in speeding on the highway when they are late for work, their only concern being whether a police car is nearby.

Some people believe that the right to die is their choice alone and belongs to no one else. People can have compelling reasons for wanting to end their lives: they may be terminally ill, as Farnsworth was; they may not want to become a burden to their families or to society at large. In some parts of the world and in some U.S. states, euthanasia is legal. But in most states it is not, which means that people who want to die in a dignified manner with a doctor's assistance do not have that option. Even if they believe it is what is best for themselves in their circumstances, they are restricted from acting on that belief. When that happens, individuals take matters into their own hands and end their lives in a less dignified way — as Farnsworth did with a shotgun. But from the perspective of Ethical Egoism, he had every moral right to act as he did.

Works Cited

AP. "Actor Richard Farnsworth Kills Himself." Los Angeles Times, 2000. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-oct-07-mn-32851-story.html

Holmes, A. Ethics: Approaching Moral Decisions. InterVarsity Press, 2007.

Neuman, Scott. "Judge Overturns Assisted Suicide Law in California." NPR, 2018. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/16/611527757/judge-overturns-assisted-suicide-law-in-california

Smith, Kyle. "Why Norm Macdonald Didn't Discuss His Terminal Cancer." National Review, 2021. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/why-norm-macdonald-didnt-discuss-his-terminal-cancer/