This paper examines the ethical, moral, and philosophical dimensions of euthanasia, with particular attention to Western religious and secular perspectives. It defines active and passive euthanasia, traces the historical acceptance and condemnation of the practice across cultures and religions, and evaluates competing frameworks including utilitarian consequentialism and Kantian deontological ethics. The paper argues that despite compelling arguments favoring individual autonomy and the relief of suffering, no justification fully overcomes the moral principle that human life is sacred. Euthanasia is ultimately opposed on grounds that it contradicts medical ethics, risks abuse, and reflects a dangerous erosion of the fundamental value of human life, except perhaps in the most extreme cases of hopeless suffering.
The topic of euthanasia is one that evokes an extensive and complex range of reactions. These range from outright moral indignation at the very suggestion that the taking of another human life could be legitimized, to arguments that provide rational reasons and justifications for its legalization. Another variable that must be taken into account is the social and cultural relativity surrounding euthanasia. While Western views on the subject share many similarities, there are cultures where euthanasia is considered more acceptable — for example, as a means of ending suffering. This also applies to different periods in history; as one source notes, "in Greek and Roman times such practices as infanticide, suicide, and euthanasia were widely accepted" (Tait).
This paper also refers to the important difference between active and passive euthanasia. The central Western view of euthanasia is colored by religion and ethical standpoints, and by the belief that all life is sacred. As Kuhse (1992) states, "Judaism and the rise of Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life has sanctity and must not deliberately be taken" (Kuhse, 1992). The sanctity of life is of cardinal importance in the major Western religions and must therefore be taken into account when discussing the ethical and moral assessment of euthanasia.
The various changes in modern Western thought and philosophy also play a role in this discussion. One must take into account the major shift from a traditional religious perspective to the modern secular viewpoint, and how this shift impacts the debate about euthanasia. This change is evident, for instance, in the defense of euthanasia by the humanist Thomas More (1478–1535) in his famous work Utopia. This was to lead to various utilitarian approaches to euthanasia.
The central thesis of this paper is that there can be no real grounds for the legitimization or acceptance of euthanasia, except in cases of the most extreme suffering and illness.
Definitions of this term often affect the way it is perceived. A common understanding of euthanasia is that it is the practice of "mercifully ending a person's life in order to release the person from an incurable disease, intolerable suffering, or undignified death" (Euthanasia). This is in line with the Greek origins of the term, which means "good death" (Euthanasia).
This definition also highlights the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Passive euthanasia does not involve taking any direct action to terminate life. Active euthanasia, on the other hand, is more contentious and refers to the intentional ending of a person's life — for example, when a doctor decides to remove a patient from life support.
There are two extreme opposites in this debate. The argument against euthanasia rests mainly on the view that life is sacred and that euthanasia is tantamount to murder. This view is countered by modern secularists who appeal to the rights of the individual and the right of personal choice.
The utilitarian approach to this issue revolves around the justification of end results. Formal or classical utilitarianism is teleological in that it asserts that "the outcome of an action determines whether the action is right or wrong" (Explain how Utilitarianism might be applied to the issue of euthanasia). Therefore, for the strict utilitarian thinker, the ethical question of euthanasia is entirely dependent on whether the outcomes of the actions are seen to be positive, negative, or conducive to the greater good.1
A different perspective — one that relates more closely to the moral and ethical religious view — can be found in the influential philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant. Kant refers to moral absolutes that serve as guidelines for rational thought and action. These are also referred to as categorical imperatives. Within this framework, one can argue that euthanasia goes against the moral absolutes of the universe. In contrast to the utilitarian approach, Kant is concerned with the moral and ethical values of the action itself, not its consequences or ends. This is an important standpoint that has influenced much of Western thought on moral dilemmas such as euthanasia.
Kant's view is therefore non-consequentialist in nature, and non-consequentialism forms an important part of the opposition to euthanasia. This view places emphasis on the actions and meaning of euthanasia itself, and questions any acceptance of euthanasia that appeals only to its outcomes or consequences. Kant believed that voluntary euthanasia "conflicts with an inviolable duty to oneself" (Kant on Euthanasia). Put another way, Kant upholds the non-consequentialist view that "something other than an action's consequences determines its moral value" (Kant on Euthanasia, 2008).
This stance also relates to deontological ethics, which refers to the moral duty that an individual has toward himself and others, and which prescribes certain actions. For Kant, this sense of duty is the foundation of moral action. To act morally, therefore, is to act out of a sense of moral duty — not merely according to the outcomes of one's actions. Kant rejects the view that it is acceptable to treat other individuals in terms of end results dictated by self-interest.
This view leads to the more explicitly religious perspective on euthanasia in the Western world, and to the dictum that it is morally wrong to take another life under any circumstances. As Kuhse (1992) succinctly states, "To take an innocent human life is, in these traditions, to usurp the right of God to give and take life. It has also been seen by influential Christian writers as a violation of natural law" (Kuhse, 1992). In religious terms, the taking of life in any form runs counter to the ethics and law of the Church and contradicts the essential relationship between human beings and God. The long history of the euthanasia debate is therefore characterized by its condemnation under Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, and the incorporation of this view into social law (Tait).
"Weighing right to die against sanctity of life"
Taking the above perspectives and viewpoints into account, the stance towards euthanasia that should be taken tends towards the sanctity of life. This refers to the view that life is a precious and mysterious phenomenon and we do not have the right, as either individuals or physicians, to determine when life should end. This point of view must be central to any argument about assisted suicide, as it is the cardinal reason why such legalization can never be fully justified. While there are many clever and ingenious arguments for the legalization of assisted suicide, no argument can overcome the fact that life is unique and sacred. If we accept this view of life, then the legalization of assisted suicide would in effect be nothing less than a legalization of killing or murder (Pipe).
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.