Philippa Foot: Negative and Positive Rights

A controversial human rights issue in modern society is the right to die, an issue that has much to do with the way that human beings relate to society at large, the notion that a man has ownership of their own body, and the obligations set forth in the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics. Physician assisted suicide, or the right to die as those in the pro-assisted suicide movement call it, divides two very different kinds of people into two camps. One’s opinion on the subject is entirely related to one’s core values. Whether one values the individual or whether one places more emphasis on the will of the majority has a great impact on one’s beliefs concerning the issue of the right to die. In this essay, I will prove

The Trolley Dilemma is a scenario where a train heading straight toward five men working on the tracks, have no idea the train is heading toward them, and nowhere to go. It would appear that death is inevitable. On another track, there is another worker all working alone. He too has no idea the train is coming. You are standing next to the lever that can switch the tracks. What would you do? Would you do nothing, resulting in killing five people, who might not know what hit them, or do you pull the lever, diverting the train, killing only one which allows the five to survive?

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

A Life or Death Situation, by Robin Marantz Henig, New York Times, July, 2013, is a review of the debate surrounding the right to a dignified death. It examines the purely philosophical view of the issue; as well as the heart wrenching reality of being faced with that question in one 's personal life. Does a person have a right to choose how he or she dies? How does that choice impact the people who care about about him or her? Should a person who cares about someone be required to cause or aide in his or her death? These questions weigh heavy on the minds of many people, who live

There is a widely shared view that active and passive euthanasia are importantly different. It is said to be one thing (passive euthanasia) to let patients die, which may sometimes be permissible, but it is quite another (active euthanasia) to kill them, which never is. This discrimination between two forms of euthanasia has been forcefully attacked by certain philosophers on the ground that the underlying distinction between killing and letting die is either not clear or, if clear, not morally important. This paper defends that there is distinction between killing and letting die. My first argument that will defend my thesis will be based on the definition of killing or letting to die and the difference in the intentions that accompany the

have the right to something, while negative rights means having the right to not be harmed

In the United States, the use of the death penalty continues to be a controversial issue. Every election year, politicians, wishing to appeal to the moral sentiments of voters, routinely compete with each other as to who will be toughest in extending the death penalty to those persons who have been convicted of first-degree murder. Both proponents and opponents of capital punishment present compelling arguments to support their claims. Often their arguments are made on different interpretations of what is moral in a just society. In this essay, I intend to present major arguments of those who support the death penalty and those who are opposed to state sanctioned executions application . However, I do intend to fairly and accurately

Capital Punishment has been used in the United States justice system for many years now, yet one must question whether or not it should be used at all. This paper will look at the Deontological views of capital punishment through the works of Kant’s categorical imperative. Arguments such as the unethical misuse of medical practice by physicians, who swear an oath to do everything in their power to save the lives of the people they care for, while using their expertise on an individual for an execution. Another argument that can be made would be the understanding just what the role of both race and religion may play in making this particular moral issue and question if individuals have a “right to life” and its effect on future execution

As humans, we have the right to life. In Canada, in section 7 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadians can expect “life, liberty and security of the person.” This means not only to simply exist, but have a minimum quality and value in each of our lives. Dying is the last important, intimate, and personal moment, and this process of dying is part of life. Whether death is a good or bad thing is not the question, as it is obviously inevitable, but as people have the right to attempt to make every event in their life pleasant, so they should have the right to make their dying as pleasant as possible. If this process is already very painful and unpleasant, people should have the right to shorten the unpleasantness. In February of this year, judges declared that the right to life does not mean individuals “cannot ‘waive’ their right to life.” Attempting suicide is not illegal in Canada, but the issue here is for those whose physical handicaps prevent them from doing so, and to allow access to a safe, regulated and painless form of suicide. It is a very difficult, sensitive and much-debated subject which seeks to balance the value of life with personal autonomy. In this essay, I will argue that the philosophical case for pro-euthanasia is more complete than those arguments against it due to the

This assignment will discuss a case involving an individual known to me. It centres on the real and contentious issue of the “right to die”, specifically in the context of physician-assisted death. This issue is widely debated in the public eye for two reasons. The first considers under what conditions a person can choose when to die and the second considers if someone ever actually has a ‘right to die’. The following analysis will consider solutions to the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted death through the lens of three ethical theories. It will also take into account the potential influence of an individual’s religious beliefs

In defining the meaning of the word ‘right’ certain questions come up, and to clarify, define, explain, and decipher, these claims of validity Leon R. Kass laid down the law or ‘rights’ as it was, as to whether or not the right to die is feasible. What is the difference between right and wants? What does it mean to have a right to something? Why should the right to die be asserted? Is there a right to die?

John Finnis, in his article A Philosophical Case Against Euthanasia, provides a compelling theoretical framework through which to view contemporary discourse surrounding euthanasia. First, this paper will draw on Finnis' position in order to establish the natural law understanding of the intrinsic value of human life. It will be argued that the right to life comes from a source other than the individual who is alive, or his family or caregivers, granting it either implicitly or explicitly. It will further be argued that the individual's duty not to have oneself euthanized, or euthanize another, is not an incident of any special responsibility that one assumes or undertakes, but is a straightforward incident of an ordinary duty everyone owes his

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

The Trolley Problem is a scenario possessing two similar versions that begs the question of whether or not it is ethical to kill a person in order to save five. In both versions of this problem, there is a trolley approaching a track with people tied down. In the first version there are two tracks; the first with five people tied down and the other with one person tied down, as the train is approaching the five people. Beside the track there is a switch

In the alternative scenario involving the Bystander at the Switch, the actor in question is not the driver but a person who has the ability to pull the lever that will divert the trolley towards one workman, versus the five workmen that will be killed if no action is taken. The dilemma is only slightly different from the original involving the onus on the driver. Either way points to the fundamental ethic of killing one to save five, and whether to do so would be the ethical choice. The difference