Ethics of Euthanasia: Utilitarianism and Deontology
Here are the specific instructions for this paper please let me know if you know how to do it.
In this paper you will take up a key issue in applied ethics and suggest how the three major schools of thought that we have engaged over the course of the semester (Virtue ethics, Deontology, and Utilitarianism) might address it.
Please select from the following list of topics. It is best to avoid a topic on which you already have strong feelings; it is very difficult to write a good paper like this on a topic that is dear to you. Your paper may be considered unacceptable if it reads like an opinion paper.
Capital Punishment
Euthanasia
Gender Discrimination
GLBT Rights
Animal Rights
Workers' Rights
Privacy infringement
Freedom of Religion
Ethics in Sport
Ethics in Education
Business Ethics
The War on Terrorism
Poverty/Social Justice
Rights of the disabled
You must address at the very least the following topics:
1. What are the key problems we face in addressing this issue from an ethical standpoint?
2. What are the dominant positions on these problems in public discourse? What arguments are they presenting for their positions? (i.e. what sides are people taking?)
3. How might the theories of the major schools contribute to our understanding of these problems? You should address all three major schools of thought (i.e. Virtue Ethics, Deontology, and Utilitarianism)
4. Where do you come down on this issue, and why? (This is the only section in which you should be stating your own opinion.)
I expect your paper to be more than a “laundry list” of answers to these questions: really try to engage the problem and give your reader (me) a sense of what is really at stake. You may refer to, but not just cut and paste, material from your thought memos.
You should be referring to the texts in order to address the Question 3: when you do so, either directly or indirectly, remember to cite! Any system of citation is acceptable so long as it is consistent and meaningful. If you use any sources other than those to which you are specifically responding you must both cite them and list them in a bibliography.
Also use the mentality of Aristotle, Plato and all those people of philosophy. Follow the specific instructions.
Euthanasia and Ethics
Name:
Instructor:
Ethics
Date:
Euthanasia is the process of ending one's life through admission or injection of a poisonous substance by another person, at the permission of the former. Euthanasia is as controversial as it sounds, and has continued raising so much ethical dust over the years, with its opponents and proponents locking horns time and again in a never-ending tag of war over its practice. Medically assisted euthanasia is the intentional killing of a patient by the doctor, in most cases due to the request by the individual, to stop one's suffering. It comes along with ethical issues, and tends to threaten even the basic understanding of the sanctity of life, and places both the medical personnel and the law at loggerheads. The hot debate surrounding utilitarianism stems from the fact that it concerns human life, and anything pertaining human life is always a weighty matter. In helping to understand euthanasia, there are a number of ethical dimensions which help in its interpretation. This paper is going to look at controversial topic of voluntary euthanasia under the lens of deontology, virtue ethics, and utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is within the body of consequentialist philosophical theories, which hold that the greatness of an act is observable from its results. Universal consequentialism, which contains utilitarianism, is usually taken as the most ideal, common philosophical perspective that enables a decision to be made based on rationality and common sense. Utilitarian ethics is based on the aspect of weighing the good against the bad (Chambers, 2005). It is more like cost-benefit analysis aimed at weighing that choice would be more reasonable under the given circumstances. Utilitarianism should result to happiness. Happiness itself means the absence or elimination of pain and grief, and the sufficiency of pleasure. Pain in this context, doesn't only mean physical, but also emotional, psychological torture, such as distress (Telfer, n.d).Therefore, a summative definition of utilitarianism is the use of choices that result to the best possible consequences.
Generally, utilitarianism deems voluntary euthanasia as very right and ethical. There usually comes a time in the life of an individual, especially a patient, when his or her continued survival brings much pain to the person ,and also distress to his or her closest associates ,such as family and friends (Chambers,2005).Distress as earlier noted, is just pain in a different dimension. The other dimension to look at it is considering the amount of resources that everyone puts in place to sustain the individual. Such resources would have otherwise been used to do other things that would bring happiness to everyone, especially so when the patient has little or no hopes of complete recovery (Telfer, n.d). Utilitarianism aims at encouraging actions whose impact will result in joy for many. Euthanasia perfectly fits the bill since it eliminates the pain of the patient. It also saves the patient's friends and family the anguish of having to see him or her suffer from something that might not be curable in any case.
However, utilitarianism has got its own undoing as well. By basing the argument on the perception that the final results should bring happiness, it sets about a very dangerous precedent that can easily be abused or manipulated by individuals for their own selfish purposes. This is especially so when looking at the other side of euthanasia; involuntary (Chambers, 2005).Through the utilitarian perspective that the end justifies the means, a scenario can arise, which pits people and the patient, with each having different opinions. The patient might not want to undergo euthanasia, while majority of the people around him or her, and want that. Such a situation is basically what constitutes involuntary euthanasia. From a utilitarian perspective, involuntary euthanasia would still be okay as long as there is general establishment of calm through aversion of mass hysteria. It would be bad for a utilitarian approach to take root under such circumstances, since involuntary euthanasia would be against the will of the patient (Telfer, n.d).Those in support of it might have their own ulterior motives.
Such an argument places utilitarianism under very tight scrutiny, since it would imply that an individual won't have much say and one's rights would be easily disregarded, if the voice of the majority is louder and different. There would essentially be no fundamental human rights since groupthink would take over, and mob mentality would be the order of the day. One won't be safe against many (Telfer, n.d).In summary utilitarianism fails here since it doesn't protect human rights, and this might be an abuse to the essence of existence itself.
In the deontological perspective of ethics, as long as an action exists, it has the possibility of being right or wrong, notwithstanding their consequences. Deontology works based on rules, be it from top-down in a hierarchical manner, or in any other delegated way. It is these rules that act as the blueprint for moral conduct in the society (Tannsjo, 2005).The sources of these rules might be by natural understanding and conscience or the religious books, such as the bible, which provides the Ten Commandments to mankind. Deontology basically looks at the action part of things, whether an act is righ...