Peter Singer: Euthanasia By Hope Schulz
Suffering is inevitable in human existence. However it is unwritten human morality that it is unethical to cause or prolong human suffering. Why then, when this suffering has become unbearable, should a person not allowed to end their pain? In various nations the practice of euthanasia is highly illegal and any person that assists in ending another person’s life can be charged with murder. These laws are heavily based in religious ethics. However in contemporary society that is moving away from the traditional religious views is it still moral to maintain such religion based laws and ethics? Or is it time to take on a more utilitarian belief, especially in accordance with the issue of voluntary euthanasia? Is human life
…show more content…
1993) Another issue put forward is questioning how we can know if the person that wishes to die is in fact making a rational decision and are able to fully comprehend what it is that they want. Who is to say they are of sound mental capacity or are not just complying with peer pressures? Or what would happen if a doctor was to wrongly determine a patient that was not terminally ill or their illness could be cured but they wish to be killed? A person may have recovered to live and be healthy again despite their short term suffering. He says to this “..Longer life is not such a supreme good that it outweighs all other considerations” (Singer, Peter. 1993) which otherwise means they would no longer suffer unbearable pain, even if it was for a short while.
To other Philosophers Singer’s rebuttal’s to these points is insufficient however. The weakest argument in his essay is how he concluded it by saying “…combination of respect for the preferences, or autonomy, of those who decide for euthanasia and in the clear rational basis of the decision itself” (Singer, Peter 1993).
puts their mind to a task at hand they can accomplish it most of the
Peter Singer’s position in his work “The Obligation to Assist”, is that all people are morally obligated to help one another without it causing any additional harm. He refers to “comparable moral significance”, which means that helping another must not cause anything worse to happen, or be a morally wrong action in and of itself, and must also be done if a comparably awful event can be stopped. His first premise is that if absolute poverty is wrong, and it can be stopped without worse consequences, then it should be stopped altogether. His second premise is that if you were to see a drowning child, you would help them out of the lake, even if your coat happens to get wet. His third premise is that morals do not need to be examined, as the need to help others should be logical without examining the morality behind it. His final premise is that the First World is rich enough to reduce poverty, and can therefore feel obligated to help. The implication of this position is that no matter what situation surrounds the person in need of help, another person would be obligated to assist them. Thusly, people who could help without having to forgo “comparable moral significance” and refrain from
According to Peter Singer, we as a society must adopt a more radical approach with regards to donating to charity and rejecting the common sense view. In the essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality, Singer argues that we have a strong moral obligation to give to charity, and to give more than we normally do. Critics against Singer have argued that being charitable is dependent on multiple factors and adopting a more revisionary approach to charity is more difficult than Singer suggests; we are not morally obliged to donate to charity to that extent.
Living in a third world country such as Jamaica gives you a firsthand experience on how much poverty has consumed the majority of the world. You’re driving along and you see a boy begging on the street asking a man in a mustang for some spare change. Should anyone be surprised if the man rolls up his window and ignore the poor boy? Would you have given the boy any of the spare change in the side of your car door?
In Peter Singer’s “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” Singer makes three claims about moral duty; that avoidable suffering is bad, that it is our moral obligation to help others in need, and that we should help those in suffering regardless of their distance to us or if others are in the same position as we are to help. First, I will elaborate on Singer’s arguments for each of these positions. Next, I will discuss two objections to Singer’s position, one that he debates in his writings and another that I examine on my own, and Singer’s responses to those objections. Then I will examine why Singer’s rebuttals to the objections were successful.
The Limit of our Moral Duty in regards to Famine Relief. In the article “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Peter Singer argues that our conceptions of moral belief need to change. Specifically, he argues that giving famine relief is not optional but a moral duty and failing to contribute money is immoral. As Singer puts it, “The way people in affluent countries react. cannot be justified; indeed the whole way we look at moral issues-our moral conceptual scheme-needs to be altered and with it, the way of life that has come to be taken for granted in our society”(135).
This paper explores Peter Singer’s argument, in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, that we have morally required obligations to those in need. The explanation of his argument and conclusion, if accepted, would dictate changes to our lifestyle as well as our conceptions of duty and charity, and would be particularly demanding of the affluent. In response to the central case presented by Singer, John Kekes offers his version, which he labels the and points out some objections. Revisions of the principle provide some response to the objections, but raise additional problems. Yet, in the end, the revisions provide support for Singer’s basic argument that, in some way, we ought to help those in need.
All different ethical theories can look at the same problem and come to different conclusions. Even philosopher’s such as Singer and Arthur understand and view ethical values differently. Peter Singer who uses the utilitarian theory believes that wealthy people should give to the degree that the wealthy person now someone in need themselves. John Arthur believes those in need or those suffering are only entitled to the help of the wealthy person if that person agrees to help, and that the property rights of the wealthy person declines the amount that Singer believes people should. People should help other people. I believe all people deserve the right to receive assistance and to not help those people would be morally wrong. However, I do not believe that the help that we are morally obligated to give should come at the cost of our own well-being.
In Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Values, Peter Singer examines ethical dilemmas that confront us in the twentieth century by identifying inconsistencies between the theory and practice of ethics in medicine. With advancements in medical technology, we focus on the quality of patients’ lives. Singer believes that in this process, we have acknowledged a new set of values that conflicts with the doctrine of the sanctity of life.
The society in Lois Lowry’s book The Giver is like a freshly printed newspaper every page is crisp and clean, but when a page is crumpled or stained the only solution is to remove it. Problems in the town are created and solved by the same cause, euthanasia. Euthanasia, in the book, is used on multiple types of people; the young who would create problems for the society; the old; and anyone who threatens the order and structure of the place. The leaders euthanize people to protect their community. Usually in situations where many suffer and only one or few benefit, it is whoever is in charge that gets blamed, but since the rulers of the society are just as unaware as the people, it is the creators of the society that are at fault.
The American Medical Association (AMA) has long been known for its strong views. As the issue of euthanasia, particularly doctor-assisted suicide, has come to the forefront, the AMA has taken a strong position on this controversial subject also. This time the AMA has taken a firm stand for preserving, not terminating, the life of the elderly/handicapped/depressed/mentally ill, etc. patient. This essay will explain in detail the stand of this influential group of doctors.
The term Euthanasia is derived from Greek, meaning good death. Taken in its common usage however, euthanasia refers to the termination of a person’s life, to end their suffering, usually from an incurable or terminal condition. It is for this reason that euthanasia was also coined the name “mercy killing”. Another type of euthanasia is Active Euthanasia refers to the deliberate act, usually through the intentional administration of lethal drugs, to end an incurably or terminally ill patient’s life. ("The Ethics of Euthanasia.") The earliest recorded date of euthanasia is dated back to 5th century B.C.-1st Century B.C. In ancient Greece and Rome, before the coming of Christianity, attitudes towards active euthanasia and suicide tended to be
As Seth wrestles with the communities objection over her involvement with Paul D, she is also confronted with the recognition that Beloved is her daughter come back to 124. After Sethe affirms Beloved to be her child, she urges for forgiveness pronouncing that the act of killing Beloved was an attempt to shield Beloved from the gears of slavery within the lines, “do you forgive me? Will you stay? You safe here now,” but Beloved refuses to respond or forgive Sethe (Morrison, #). Sethe’s sin of inaction is a manifestation of her wrong choices, so she pleads with Beloved in order to be pardoned of all past wrong doings, but Beloved never provides repentance from Sethe 's ills. Furthermore, Sethe’s is attempting to forget her past and begin
Assisted suicide is a very controversial topic in American society that must be dealt with. In assisted suicide, a patient who is terminally ill requests the doctor to administer a lethal dose of medication to end his life. Assisted suicide brings up many moral and legal issues regarding the right of a patient to die with respect and the duties of a doctor. This issue is divided among people who believe that doctor assisted suicide is illegal and immoral and those who believe that suicide is a right that people have. Doctors who aid a patient to commit suicide are performing an illegal act and should be penalized to the full extent of the law.
Concluding from the experience /theorists/ – they like to get the overall picture and to feel intellectually stretched, and they are logical and rational thinkers.