Argumentative Essay On Shooting The Friend

Out of the seven reasons to not shoot the friend, I believe the second reason which states there might be a chance that the friend would survive the flames to be the strongest. Remaining alive would yield the greatest amount of utility. By shooting the friend, that possibility goes away. Although shooting the friend would minimize disutility, its end result would still create disutility. So if there is a chance, albeit slim, utilitarianism would say to take that path to maximize utility.

Based on the length of his arguments, it seems that the author believes the first reason which states of the possibility of failing to mercy kill the friend to be the strongest. It follows a valid argument, but it is also sound as well. It is uncertain of what the outcome would be. Although the odds favor success there is still a slim possibility of failure and that uncertainty means that we should not take that risk. It’s analogous to a certain unique lottery. This lottery has a 95% of us winning and 5% of us losing. When we win, we get

a hundred dollars. If we lose, we have to pay ten million dollars. Most of us, including myself, wouldn’t play since the consequence of that risk is too great even if the odds are greatly in our favor.
Hope believes that reason seven is misguided since it fails to understand why the principle of killing is bad.

People that argue for reason seven blindly follow the idea that murder is evil. In ways, they are correct. If we make favorable exceptions to murder such as the mercy kill, then we have to make undesirable exceptions such allowing a crazed bloodlust to satisfy his desires. However, morality is too fickle, we mustn’t be so rigid and blindly accept “moral truths.” Hope believes we must think for ourselves and evaluate each situation as its very own. In the situation where the friend has very little chance of survival, it would be best to mercy kill him. Hope believe that advocates that are against shooting fail to realize why killing is bad. Hope believes that killing increasing harm to others which is why we mustn’t do so. However, in that specific situation, it would be more harmful to the friend if we didn’t

shoot.
I think mercy killing is permissible as long as it is a last resort. Take for instance mentally depressed people. I believe that if a patient requests an assisted-suicide, the first steps should be therapy or any other procedures to help them with their mental illness. Only after when the patient feels like they are unable to get better is when euthanasia should be applied. The reason for this is I believe life is better than death. Even if the chances of them getting better are slim, I still think that possibility should be explored. When it does become evident that they will not become better, it would be best for them to go peacefully so they would no longer have to suffer. In the case of the friend trapped in a blazing lorry, I would attempt to help the friend for as long as I could. Only when I feel like there isn’t a chance for his survival would I resort to mercifully killing him.