Justification of Death through Utilitarian and Aristotelian Means The justification of death in a Utilitarian or Aristotelian scenario rely on omissions from the norm or however seems fit the individual. the gray space between the rules of either theory allows for interpretations (misguided or educated guesses) and keeping facts only between the parties involved. Although Utilitarianism is a way to control the masses and allow for best possible performance out of the people following it, Aristotle’s Virtue Theory allows for the emotional understanding of a situation, as well as an individualized decision per scenario, without disrupting the norm. Utilitarianism cares more for the whole of society than the individuals that make it. This theory breeds the idea that death can be helpful for the whole. It could be in the forms of executions, murder, suicide, assisted suicide, etc. Peter Singer quotes in his article “Decisions about Death” John Stuart Mill’s bridge example: if you see someone crossing an unsafe bridge, you may stop them and warn them. If they continue anyway, you must step aside and let them cross.” The idea that people have free will, and use it to make decisions about themselves in their own best interest can go on to create a slippery-slope mentality - Because we executed one murderer, we can execute every murderer, no matter their reasoning! Singer’s article focuses on classic hedonistic utilitarianism, and questions why patients are not given the option for assisted suicide in some states and countries. His question is a double edged sword for the philosophy; ending the ability to let an individual think freely is irrational, yet taking away someone’s autonomy is just as bad. The struggle of doing what one o... ... middle of paper ... ...priate ways of dealing with it within their limits. Virtue Theory manages to give peace for those involved with the moral issue, and maintains order within the masses. It does not allow for law breaking as a means of strengthening purpose, and gives the individual the ability to improve their moral virtue, while keeping balance after a situation. Bibliography "Matters of life and death." UMD Philosophy. http://faculty.philosophy.umd.edu/pcarruthers/140-4.pdf (accessed April 12, 2014). Singer, Peter. "Decisions about Death, by Peter Singer." Decisions about Death, by Peter Singer. http://www.utilitarianism.net/singer/by/200508--.htm (accessed April 12, 2014). Tischler Aikin, Sarah. "Theory of Rectificatory Justice." Just Violence: An Aristotelian Justification of Capital Punishment. http://www.csuchico.edu/pst/JustViolence.htm (accessed April 12, 2014).
Daniel Challahan attempts to argue that Euthanasia is always seriously morally wrong in his article, “When Self-Determination Runs Amok.” Callahan discusses several reasons depicting why he believes that Euthanasia is morally impermissible. John Lachs, however, does not see validity in several of Callahan’s points and responds to them in his article, “When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok.” Two points from Callahan’s article Lachs challenges are the fundamental moral wrong view and the subjectiveness of suffering.
In “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” Judith Thomson confronts the moral dilemma of how death comes about, whether one meets their demise through natural causes or by the hands of another (Shafer-Landau 544). If one does in fact lose their life through the action or inaction of another person, a second dilemma must also be considered. Does it matter whether a person was killed or simply allowed to die? The moral debate that arises from these issues is important because if forms opinions that ultimately sets the tone for what is socially acceptable behavior. Social issue such as legalization of euthanasia, abortions, and the distribution of medical resources all hinge on the “killing vs letting die problem”.
Utilitarianism argues that, we need to consider how much overall happiness of the action could bring, considering everyone involved. For example, how will Brittany’s choice for euthanasia affect her husband, friend, and parents? In Craig’s case, how will his choice for euthanasia affect his wife, son, and daughter? In both of their cases, that devastation that they will die is already difficult for them, and their families. Craig’ wife and his two children were sad that he was making the decision to die before his illness consumed him. Her daughter speaks on how hard it was for her, and in a sense relieved, she was not present when her father took his own life. Brittany was a newlywed, it was extremely sad for her husband and brother in law to know she was taking her life beforehand. To make a choice an act-utilitarian would need to balance out the overall happiness compared to the suffering. Both Brittany and Craig will eventually die. If they both let their terminal illness progress they would inflict extreme suffering on themselves and their family as they witnessed their pain. In Craig’s case, his illness will get worst it will cause paralysis. His major concern was on how would he be able to let
Louden opens this section with this statement: “… it is commonplace that virtue theorists focus on good and bad agents rather than on right and wrong acts.” This is a good th...
I'm not afraid of being dead. I'm just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there” (Pamela Bone). The sense of dying or losing a loved one is a conception that has plagued any family member at some time or another. How will one deal with the struggle of burying their loved one, the bills, and not waking up and seeing them or calling them every day? More so, will that person be in the pain when they leave their physical form? Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, gives a person the chance the take the ending of their life into their own hands and make, an otherwise undefined, decision of how he/she would want their final moments to be. In this paper I plan to display that based on the utilitarian perspective, Rachels’ writings, and contemplating human rights constructed from a governmental outlook, that euthanasia is just and morally acceptable and should be considered in a reasonable means of expiry when an entity is plagued with chronic mental, emotional, or physical pain.
I have brought forward considerations that counter Callahan's reasoning against three types of arguments that support euthanasia: the right to self-determination, the insignificant difference between killing and letting a person die by removing their life-support, and euthanasia's good consequences outweighing the harmful consequences are all positive, relevant and valid factors in the moral evaluation of euthanasia. Callahan's objections against these reasons do not hold.
The right to assisted suicide is a significant topic that concerns people all over the United States. The debates go back and forth about whether a dying patient has the right to die with the assistance of a physician. Some are against it because of religious and moral reasons. Others are for it because of their compassion and respect for the dying. Physicians are also divided on the issue. They differ where they place the line that separates relief from dying--and killing. For many the main concern with assisted suicide lies with the competence of the terminally ill. Many terminally ill patients who are in the final stages of their lives have requested doctors to aid them in exercising active euthanasia. It is sad to realize that these people are in great agony and that to them the only hope of bringing that agony to a halt is through assisted suicide.When people see the word euthanasia, they see the meaning of the word in two different lights. Euthanasia for some carries a negative connotation; it is the same as murder. For others, however, euthanasia is the act of putting someone to death painlessly, or allowing a person suffering from an incurable and painful disease or condition to die by withholding extreme medical measures. But after studying both sides of the issue, a compassionate individual must conclude that competent terminal patients should be given the right to assisted suicide in order to end their suffering, reduce the damaging financial effects of hospital care on their families, and preserve the individual right of people to determine their own fate.
Physician -assisted suicide has been a conflict in the medical field since pre- Christian eras, and is an issue that has resurfaced in the twentieth century. People today are not aware of what the term physician assisted suicide means, and are opposed to listening to advocates’ perspectives. Individuals need to understand that problems do not go away by not choosing to face them. This paper’s perspective of assisted suicide is that it is an option to respect the dignity of patients, and only those with deathly illness are justified for this method.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.
More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their lives, either by their own consent or by someone with the proper authority to make the decision. No living being should leave this world in suffering. To go about obtaining my thesis, I will first present my opponents view on the issue. I will then provide a Utilitarian argument for euthanasia, and a Kantian argument for euthanasia. Both arguments will have an objection from my opponent, which will be followed by a counter-objection from my standpoint.
Dying with dignity, mercy death, right to die, and assisted suicide are just a few of the common terms, which describe a person’s death by euthanasia. Euthanasia has and always will be a very sensitive and controversial topic. There are two common questions surrounding this dilemma. The first is when is it considered mercy? Is it when a person is facing a terminal illness? The second is when is considered murder? Is it when a person looking for an easy way out of suffering and pain? This paper will examine the ethical dilemma of euthanasia according to the Christian worldview and compare it to other options of resolving the dilemma.
First of all, the death penalty carries out actions that support the morals of society. If someone commits a crime that is considered severe, then they justifiably deserve punishment of the same level of severity. The severity of the crime should determine the punishment. (Riley 2) One would not reward someone for doing wrong. Living life is a privilege and a reward. Allowing someone to walk the earth after they have taken the life of someone else is against all morals of society. ...
It has more to do with character and the nature of what it is to be. human, than with the rights and wrongs of our actions. Instead of concentrating on what is the right thing to do, virtue ethics asks how. you can be a better person. Aristotle says that those who do lead a virtuous life, are very happy and have a sense of well-being.
This theory involves evaluating the individual making the decision rather than the actions or consequences themselves. Aristotle defined “virtue as a character trait that manifests itself in habitual actions.” (Boatright, 2012) This means that you are not considered virtuous because you did the right thing one time, you must be consistent. Virtue character traits include: compassion, courage, courtesy, etc. these traits not only allow for ethical decision making but they also provide happiness to the individual possessing the traits. When a person has virtue as a part of their character their actions will be moral and ethical without having to choose between what they want to do and what they should do – the decision would be the same. Their actions and feelings would coincide with the moral rationale of the virtue theory. Advantages of the virtue theory are instilling good moral character traits into individuals allowing for more ethical decision making based on personal character. Also, the virtue theory promotes happiness through good moral character which encourages people to make ethical business decisions but also ethical personal decisions – leading to a more fulfilling life. A disadvantage is virtue ethics is trying to determine a list of virtues that people should possess, each trait needs to be carefully