The Fallacies Of Callahan 's Arguments

1550 Words Dec 15th, 2015 7 Pages
Philosophers throughout history often have a pessimistic outlook on life. Socrates, Lucretius and Epicurus are just some of a number of philosophers that argue against the liberal view of life. Daniel Callahan is a contemporary philosopher that explores the role of medicine in modern society. Callahan argues against the liberal view of life by saying that people should focus on living full and fitting lives. In the first section, titled The Fallacies of Callahan’s Arguments, I explore the problems with his ideas and show that his argument does not justify setting a limit to human lives. In The Argument for the Continuation of Life, I argue for the liberal view of life and support it with Christine Overall’s views. Human beings should be able to extend their lives as they see fit and setting limits based on anti-life extension ideas would go against the individual’s right to choose.
THE FALLACIES OF CALLAHAN’S ARGUMENTS: Daniel Callahan begins Chapter three with a critique of the modern state of medicine; he believes that medicine has placed too much effort on life extension. Callahan then tries to determine the goal of medicine through his beliefs. He states, “I want to argue that medicine should be used not for the further extension of life of the aged, but only for the full achievement of a natural and fitting life span and thereafter for the relief of suffering” (Callahan, 53). In his thesis, he states that he believes that medicine should only be used for the relief of…
Open Document