Euthanasia, Sanctity of Life, and Utilitarian Ethics

What makes this paper effective

• It balances multiple competing philosophical perspectives — utilitarian, disability rights, and deontological — without dismissing any view outright, demonstrating genuine engagement with the complexity of the debate.
• It uses direct quotation strategically, grounding abstract ethical claims in the words of the thinkers themselves, which strengthens credibility and precision.
• The conclusion reaches a measured, nuanced position — advocating individual autonomy while acknowledging the legitimate concern about societal abuse — rather than taking an extreme stance.

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper demonstrates dialectical reasoning: it introduces one philosopher's position, brings in a counter-argument from another thinker, and then synthesizes a qualified conclusion. This move — thesis, antithesis, qualified synthesis — is a core skill in applied ethics writing and is especially well-executed in the treatment of Singer versus Johnson and Rachels's mediation between them.

Structure breakdown

The paper opens by framing Singer's utilitarian argument on infanticide and immediately counters it with Johnson's lived experience and disability rights perspective. It then introduces Rachels to pivot the debate from birth to end of life, distinguishing the question of consent that makes terminal euthanasia ethically distinct from infanticide. A final paragraph raises the slippery slope objection (Doerflinger) before the essay concludes with a call for individual autonomy tempered by societal oversight. The structure moves logically from the most controversial application of the argument to the most defensible one.