However, we mustn't forget the principle of double effect. It is wrong to kill, but is it wrong to give someone pain relief if a secondary effect is that they die? Once someone accept that death is merely a by-product of another action, he is asking a very different question. Asking 'Is death a proportionate outcome?' This brings in a utilitarian type of consideration, which we would not expect from Natural Law.
In other words, while Natural Law clearly doesn't support active euthanasia, it may well allow an action whose intention is merely to relieve pain, even if the action leads to death. There are natural law thinkers who find the doctrine of double effect difficult to reconcile with Natural Law thinking.
Situation Ethics is easy to apply …show more content…
Of course sometimes when people talk about “dying with dignity” they’re assuming that it’s the need to be cared for by others that’s “undignified.” Another implication of the Principle of Humanity is that lying is typically wrong. A woman who persuades me to sell her my new car at a low price by telling me a lie that I believe (“males who drive your model of car are 20 times more likely to develop testicular cancer than males who don’t”) treats me as a mere means. She manipulates me in a way that I would not consent to if I were aware of what her purposes are. What many people have criticized in Kant is not his claim that lies like this one are wrong, but his view that lying is always wrong. In the case where lying to evil people will help to thwart their evil aims (e.g. someone intent on committing murder asks me the whereabouts of his intended victim) Kant held that lying remains wrong. Instead of lying, I should simply not say anything. The main problem with the Principle of Humanity is that it’s not entirely clear what it means to treat another person as an “end.” It’s been claimed that it means you must treat others in ways that they would not object to if they were morally reasonable, thinking clearly, and well-informed about relevant factual matters. When society puts a thief in prison, it’s treating him as an end, because even though he might object to being incarcerated, he wouldn’t object if he were morally reasonable; he would admit that thieves deserve to go to jail. One problem with this interpretation of the Principle is that it assumes some other, independent standard of what’s “morally reasonable.”
At the heart of these arguments are the different ideas that people have about the meaning and value of human existence. Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death? There are also a number of arguments based on practical issues. Some may think that euthanasia shouldn't be
In other words, while Natural Law clearly doesn't support active euthanasia, it may well allow an action whose intention is merely to relieve pain, even if the action leads to death. There are natural law thinkers who find the doctrine of double effect difficult to reconcile with Natural Law thinking.
Situation Ethics is easy to apply …show more content…
Of course sometimes when people talk about “dying with dignity” they’re assuming that it’s the need to be cared for by others that’s “undignified.” Another implication of the Principle of Humanity is that lying is typically wrong. A woman who persuades me to sell her my new car at a low price by telling me a lie that I believe (“males who drive your model of car are 20 times more likely to develop testicular cancer than males who don’t”) treats me as a mere means. She manipulates me in a way that I would not consent to if I were aware of what her purposes are. What many people have criticized in Kant is not his claim that lies like this one are wrong, but his view that lying is always wrong. In the case where lying to evil people will help to thwart their evil aims (e.g. someone intent on committing murder asks me the whereabouts of his intended victim) Kant held that lying remains wrong. Instead of lying, I should simply not say anything. The main problem with the Principle of Humanity is that it’s not entirely clear what it means to treat another person as an “end.” It’s been claimed that it means you must treat others in ways that they would not object to if they were morally reasonable, thinking clearly, and well-informed about relevant factual matters. When society puts a thief in prison, it’s treating him as an end, because even though he might object to being incarcerated, he wouldn’t object if he were morally reasonable; he would admit that thieves deserve to go to jail. One problem with this interpretation of the Principle is that it assumes some other, independent standard of what’s “morally reasonable.”
At the heart of these arguments are the different ideas that people have about the meaning and value of human existence. Should human beings have the right to decide on issues of life and death? There are also a number of arguments based on practical issues. Some may think that euthanasia shouldn't be