The Moral Permissibility of Legalizing Active Euthanasia Essay

Philippa Foot, a philosopher, argued that moral judgments have a rational basis. The choices we make in our lives are based on a number of varying and different factors. Theories such as the principle of double effect are meant to back up the choices we make in society. The doctrine of the double effect relies strongly on the difference between what a person “foresees” as an outcome of their individual actions, and what they actually intended the outcome to be (Timmons, 2012, p. 93). This theory refers to two very identifiable results. The first, is that the action may produce the “one aimed at”, and second, “the one foreseen but in no way desired.” Foot further explains that “oblique intention” and “direct intention” are often determining factors in the principle of double effect. Through oblique intention, a person brings about an effect that was unintended and through direct intention a person brings about an effect intentionally (Timmons, 2012, p. 94).

But doctors should not be involved in directly causing death. This brings us to the controversial point of active and passive euthanasia. Some people think there is no real difference between the two, since stopping a treatment and administering one are both deliberate acts. But there is a moral difference between letting a person die peacefully and deliberately killing the person. Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive, officiously, to keep alive.

“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.

The convictions that humans accept are meaningless without the actions that instigate and perpetuate the belief. For

or not you agree if it is moral or not, one issue remains. The death

Most people think that killing is worse than letting die. The latter is a fact. Throughout her essay, Thomson explores this idea and comes to the surprising conclusion that it is sometimes permissible to kill instead of letting die. This along with the famous Trolley Problem, first introduced by Philippa Foot, as well as a few other examples and variations, leave the reader with ambiguity on the subject: exactly under which circumstances is it permissible to kill rather than to let die? In short, we can manipulate things around us –things that are unowned, but we cannot manipulate people for we do not own them (Thomson, p.14)

P1. If the difference between killing and letting die is in itself a morally important matter, then Jones’s behaviour is less reprehensible than Smith’s behaviour.

In James Rachel’s article Active and Passive Euthanasia, James provides the argument that there is no difference between active and passive euthanasia because in the end, either through inaction or action, it both results in death and there are no moral differences in ‘killing’ or ‘letting die’. Rachel provides several different arguments to support his case including a patient dying of terminal cancer, and two uncles and the death of their nephews.

Others may say from the Smith and Jones example that Jones had different intentions from the beginning than smith did, so that what makes Jones different from Smith. They may argue by saying active and passive euthanasia are different even if the outcome is the same. Everyone thinks active euthanasia is far worse than passive euthanasia because active euthanasia is you wanting to do it and passive is letting it naturally happen. Some believe that it’s unfair to be held someone accountable even though they didn’t take any action. Just because two individuals have the same desire and motive, both should not be judge the same if one of them didn’t take action. The individual that took action should only be the one to be blame for. For example,

Allowing someone to die is often challenged to be morally the same as with the act to kill. Philosophers will argue that there is no moral difference between omitting an action with the intent that the action not performed will lead to death and performing the action directly that also has the intent it will lead to death. Both actions are seen as an act to kill and because one shall not kill, both are morally wrong. Common sense would say killing is far worse than allowing someone to die and is often described as murder. But if allowing someone to die is morally the same as killing, then many would be called murderers when they don’t have the means to contribute to a foundation like St. Jude, whose hope is to find cure for children who are dying. If we are

There are two major ideas as to why it is considered wrong to kill another person. The first is that by doing so you prevent that person from achieving or fulfilling their desires. In terms of the abortion debate this favours pro-choice, as foetuses don’t have desires, however that idea itself is flawed. Other groups of people that don’t have desires, such as people suffering depression, or the unconscious or sleeping person, it would still be considered wrong to kill. The other argument for why it is wrong to kill another person is the discontinuation account. This states that what makes killing wrong is discontinuing a life of value (Young, 1979). While the foetus may not yet have a life of value, it is considered that they will at one point, if allowed the

Intention is the heart of every action. It puts value and meaning in our day to day action. In the two main theory that we covered in class, morality of obligation and morality of Happiness, Intention is central in both views. Intention help us evaluate our morality. It also comes under the bigger topic of free action. In the book Mattison state, “All free action is intentional, but not all intentional action is free.” (p. 48) I also hold this view because as long as we know what we are doing its intentional, but if it is an action that is under duress than the action is not done with the free participation of the individual. Free action is action where the individual understands the meaning and the

Intentions are an aptitude; A tendency natural to every human being in the entire world. Physically and mentally can your 's and others ' intentions impact you, whether it 's something you had planned on or something you were forced to go through with. An intention is solely based on your morals and beliefs, as it is what you plan on doing and why you plan on doing so. The intentions we have widely depict who we are as human beings, and the intentions we have are separated as such: good, bad, moral and immoral. What I plan to do is break each one down individually for

Euthanasia legalization has been a controversial topic for years; studies have shown that arguments regarding the euthanasia debate are often depending on the process used to take the life of the patient. There are a lot of thoughts surrounding the issue of euthanasia and whether or not it should be legal. According to the Encyclopedia of American Law, euthanasia is categorized as a class of criminal homicide (Debate.org, par. 3). However, not all homicides are considered illegal. In today’s society, killing is seen as excusable when used as a criminal penalty, but inexcusable when carried out for any other reason. In most places, non-voluntary euthanasia is considered illegal and involuntary euthanasia is considered a criminal homicide.

Both are powerful forces that contribute to morality. However, Hume concludes that it is the sentiment, feeling, or pleasure that human beings feel that ultimately shape their morality.