The Wrongful of Euthanasia: J. Gay Williams

J. Gay Williams attempts to prove the wrongfulness of euthanasia with three separate arguments. The topic of my paper relates to his first argument--the argument from nature. J. Gay Williams (1992) tries to show that euthanasia is naturally wrong, but there are good reasons to believe that his argument is unsound. The argument extracted from J. Gay-William’s selection goes as follows: 1. Every case in which a person is euthanized is a case in which a person acts against the natural goal of survival. 2. Every case in which a person acts against the natural goal of survival is a case in which a person acts wrongfully. 3. Every case in which a person is euthanized is a case in which a person acts wrongfully [1, 2] (Gay-Williams). The conclusion, “Every case in which a person is euthanized is a case in which a person acts wrongfully” follows from premises one and two and is a valid argument. However, simply because an argument is valid does not make it sound. I believe that premise two makes J. Gay-Williams argument from nature unsound. To begin, I would like to take a utilitarian approach to the subject of euthanasia. Utilitarians believe that an action should cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. As a terminally ill person continues to render further implications of their disease, more and more pain will bestow upon them. They may become bed ridden and unable to enjoy the activities and pleasures that made their life intrinsically good. As time