Essay Undergraduate 693 words

Lives Worth Living: Singer, Utilitarianism, and Euthanasia

~4 min read

Abstract

This paper examines the philosophical debate surrounding whether some lives are not worth living, centering on Peter Singer's utilitarian defense of infanticide and euthanasia. The analysis presents counterarguments from disability activist Harriet McBryde Johnson, who critiques Singer's assumptions about disability and suffering, and philosopher James Rachels, who distinguishes between infanticide and end-of-life decisions. The paper concludes that decisions about euthanasia should rest with mentally competent individuals and their families rather than be imposed by the state, while acknowledging the need for careful societal safeguards against misuse.

📝 How to Write This Type of Paper Writing guide — click to expand

▼

What makes this paper effective

Presents three distinct philosophical perspectives in genuine dialogue rather than straw-manning opposing views
Uses a concrete case (Johnson's own critique of Singer) to ground abstract utilitarian reasoning in lived experience
Acknowledges the legitimate tension between protecting vulnerable populations and respecting autonomous choice at end of life
Moves beyond binary thinking to propose a nuanced position that accepts euthanasia under strict conditions while recognizing genuine risks

Key academic technique demonstrated

The paper employs comparative philosophical analysis, mapping three thinkers' positions onto a spectrum rather than treating them as isolated claims. Singer's utilitarian calculus is presented with its internal logic intact, then tested against Johnson's empirical objections about disability, and finally refined through Rachels' distinction between different life contexts. This structure allows the reader to see how philosophical frameworks either hold up or require modification when confronted with real-world complexity.

Structure breakdown

The introduction establishes Singer's position and Johnson's immediate objection. The second paragraph introduces Rachels as a mediating voice who accepts some utilitarian reasoning while rejecting its most extreme applications, particularly regarding infanticide. The final paragraph synthesizes these views into a practical conclusion: individual choice should govern euthanasia decisions, but within carefully monitored societal limits. The slippery slope concern is acknowledged rather than dismissed, lending intellectual honesty to the resolution.

Singer's Utilitarian Argument for Infanticide

Professor Peter Singer is a well-known utilitarian who advocates the right of parents to commit infanticide based on utilitarian premises. He argues that the resources expended by keeping severely disabled children alive are too great and that it would make more sense to allow families to adopt healthy children with a greater chance at happiness. Singer's framework treats life as valuable primarily insofar as it can generate well-being, and judges resource allocation by whether those resources will produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

Disability activist Harriet McBryde Johnson, who says that she would not be alive if this type of calculus had been employed, directly challenges Singer's assumptions. She writes: "But like the protagonist in a classical drama, Singer has his flaw. It is his unexamined assumption that disabled people are inherently 'worse off,' that we 'suffer,' that we have lesser 'prospects of a happy life'" (Johnson 2003: 12).

Johnson's Critique: Disability, Suffering, and Care

Johnson argues against assisted suicide entirely, even with the consent of the person who feels that his or her life is no longer worth living. Instead, she advocates for a society where care is more readily available to those who need it. "As a society, we should pay workers to provide that care, in the home," she proposes, suggesting that many perceived quality-of-life deficits stem from inadequate social support rather than inherent to disability itself (Johnson 2003: 9).

2 Locked Sections · 470 words remaining

Rachels' Counterbalance: Consent and Terminal Illness · 245 words

"Distinguishing infanticide from end-of-life decisions"

Balancing Individual Choice Against Societal Concerns · 225 words

"Individual autonomy within protective safeguards"

You’re 33% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.

130,000+ paper examples AI writing assistant Citation generator Cancel anytime

Key Concepts in This Paper

Peter Singer Utilitarianism Infanticide Euthanasia Harriet McBryde Johnson Disability Rights Informed Consent Sanctity of Life End-of-Life Care Slippery Slope