Utilitarianism and Euthanasia

Assisted suicide is an ethical topic that has sparked up many controversies. Individuals have heated disputes on whether or not patients who are suffering should have the right to die. Some worry that legalizing euthanasia is irrational and would violate some religions, while others argue that it provides a peaceful death towards terminally ill patients who are suffering from pain. Physician-assisted suicide is a contentious matter, in which there are many positive and negative aspects, whether or not it should be committed is a complex decision.

After considering the system of utilitarianism, it is important to take a close look at the roots and depth of euthanasia as it has infiltrated our society. This will include an in-depth look at the overall idea of euthanasia, a history of the laws that have defined euthanasia, a specific case of euthanasia, and how the decision-making system of utilitarianism can be applied to a specific ethical communicative issue within.

First, all individuals do have a duty to what is right, whether they act accordingly or not. All citizens are held to a duty to uphold the laws, if there was no duty then laws would not exist. Morality coincides with being loyal to the laws, being a disciplined person, and living an orderly life. These essentials are all present in Kant’s perception of duty.

The ethical debate on non-voluntary euthanasia is a complex issue due to its multifaceted nature. This topic examines the morality of ending a human’s life in circumstances where the person is incapable of issuing explicit consent. These cases would include utilizing euthanasia on very young children or someone in a vegetative state. There lacks consent with young children since they cannot speak to provide consent. Explicit consent is lacking with someone in a vegetative state since they are incapable of deciding at that moment to continue living or end their life.

With this paper I plan to address the topic of euthanasia. I will cover the philosophy behind why it is not a regular practice, and differentiate between multiple forms. After introducing the issue, itself I will speak briefly on the legality of the issue. This should result in the principles of myself, Peter Singer, Don Marquis, and Michael Tooley all being brought together in this discussion. Ultimately, I will lead this discussion into the direction of why I have found euthanasia to be a morally permissible action.

The legalization of euthanasia has always been a highly debatable topic since it causes philosophical, religious, moral and ethical controversy where some people believe it reduces our respect for the value of human life and it will be a gateway for other immoral actions to be normalized even though it is a basic human right that patients all over the world are denied to this day.

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.

One of greatest moral issues facing society today is that of freedom. Freedom is a principle that this country was founded on at the start of its inception. Freedom is still a cause that requires our attention. The great debate on simple liberties such as the right to decide what happens to one’s body is still an issue that society has failed to resolve. It is a moral quandary that will continue to be discussed and a deliberated on as long as humankind are free moral agents with personal moral preferences. The question is do we allow our personal preferences to impede the decisions of other individuals? If we have the right to have our set of moral preferences do, other individuals deserve that same

Kant's concept of morality relies on good will, acting from duty, and categorical imperative. First, he asserts that the good will is always decent and its value will be remained even if it does not attain its moral motives. Second, he claims it is our moral duty that decides the rightness or wrongness of actions not the consequences. Third, Kant urges that categorical imperative is based on reason and it binds us despite of our desires; furthermore, he uses it a way of assessing intentions for a moral action.

The ethical issue is Euthanasia, there are many groups that support or oppose this issue. Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. The different viewpoints are based around whether it is humane to assist someone in dying and whether it should be illegal for someone to assist the death of someone who has a terminal illness and are suffering incurable pain. Groups that oppose the issue generally believe that it is inhumane to end someone 's life early, these groups generally believe these people should be given care and as much comfort as possible until their last days. Groups that support the issue generally believe that if someone has lost their mental state or are suffering unbearable pain that cannot be cured, that they should be allowed the option of euthanasia because it is inhumane to make someone suffer unbearable pain if they do not need to. An ethical issue brings systems of morality and principles into conflict, ethical issues are more subjective and opinionated and generally cannot be solved with facts, laws and truth. Euthanasia is an ethical issue because there are two equally unacceptable options. It is considered wrong

First of all, it is inevitable that the argument “euthanasia being morally permissible” is relevant to the philosophical theory “Utilitarianism” which generally fixates on increasing happiness and decreasing misery to an

Euthanasia debate opposes two sides in which one side argues that letting someone suffer is not ethical and the other side defend that to help someone to die is not ethical based on the morality that no one should kill or help someone to die (fundamental right that everyone is allowed to live), they judge that euthanasia should compromise the criminal code. For my own morality, I am for the euthanasia possibility for the people in need to die for the reason of the person’s well-being.

In cases of involuntary euthanasia, the patient is able to provide informed consent, but does not do so. For example, a young man is in agony after being severely injured in a car accident. He begs the doctor to do anything to save him. Knowing that the young man’s pain is only going to get worse and that he will die in a matter of hours, the doctor gives the young man a lethal dose of medication in order to spare him additional pain and end his life. Despite the fact that someone’s motive for euthanizing another person against their will could seem moral, I believe the practice of involuntary euthanasia is highly immoral and equivalent to murder. Not surprisingly, involuntary euthanasia is almost universally condemned in civilized society.

The philosophical theories and ethics of two philosophers, Aristotle and Kant, offer two differing views on the morality of euthanasia. Margaret P. Battin’s “Euthanasia: The Way We Do It, the Way They Do It” offers three countries’ perspectives on and laws regarding euthanasia and/or physician assisted suicide, as well as evaluations and critiques of their policies. To determine which of these points of view has the most pertinence, all of these arguments will be outlined and consequently analyzed, both separately and in relation to each other. Their differences and similarities will be enumerated and described, consequently their merit will be discussed. Ultimately, Aristotle’s moral theory centering around eudaimonia will be shown to be superior to Kant’s categorical imperative, because of its flexible nature when evaluating the acceptability of euthanasia under different circumstances.

Euthanasia, which is also referred to as mercy killing, is the act of ending someone’s life either passively or actively, usually for the purpose of relieving pain and suffering. “All forms of euthanasia require an intention to accelerate death in order to benefit patients experiencing a poor quality of life” (Sayers, 2005). It is a highly controversial subject that often leaves a person with mixed emotions and beliefs. Opinions regarding this topic hinge on the health and mental state of the victim as well as method of death. It raises legal issues as well as the issue of morals and ethics. Euthanasia is divided into two different categories, passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. “There are unavoidable uncertainties in both active and