Final Paper
It is a reflex of our conscious to conclude that the killing of innocent people is morally wrong. However, there are certain circumstances that can easily persuade our bleeding hearts to sympathize with those who have committed murderous actions we would have previously deemed unforgivable. Survival is one of the most basic instincts of all living creatures. Nevertheless, there are times when dying seems like the only solution to the suffering a human being may endure. As a society we have already given moral lenience to killing in war, self-defense, and the use of capital punishment, yet when it comes to the death of virtuous individuals by the hands of someone else, even if that someone is a medical professional, people hesitate. …show more content…
The Principle of Utility, developed by Jeremy Bentham and expanded on by future advocate John Stewart Mill, arguably holds one of the most straightforward foundations for ethical choices; whatever brings the most amount of happiness and the least amount of suffering is the morally right choice. If we were to apply such reasoning to an example of euthanasia; say a doctor who assists a man suffering from an immensely painful cancer in suicide, then the answer seems incredibly simple. If the doctor were to kill the man, it would undoubtedly end his suffering. According to Utilitarianism, to do anything else would be morally wrong. It is not only the best choice to make, but the doctor’s moral duty to grant the man his peace and bring the most happiness to the situation. By taking a Utilitarian perspective on this issue, it appears to be exceedingly wrong to take away a person’s control over their own life. It is that freedom of personal autonomy and the absence of suffering that sets the Utilitarian view of Euthanasia apart from others. Utilitarianism grants us the permission to accept such a death as morally …show more content…
Considering that we embody beliefs from many theories, as most humans tend to, then we see how holding parts of both views can make us feel at odds with ourselves. Utilitarians tell us that suffering is wrong. By their moral code, it is not only acceptable to kill a suffering person, but indeed a virtuous act. On the other hand, Kantians want us to think about the potential repercussions of that acceptance. What might come from the legalization of an innocent’s death? It could possibly result in all out anarchy. Kantians advise us to think not just of the happiness of individuals, but the value of life itself. From the eyes of an average person who holds, not one, but many perspectives on the subject of morality, it is easy to see how Euthanasia can seem both reasonable and unscrupulous at the exact same
It is a reflex of our conscious to conclude that the killing of innocent people is morally wrong. However, there are certain circumstances that can easily persuade our bleeding hearts to sympathize with those who have committed murderous actions we would have previously deemed unforgivable. Survival is one of the most basic instincts of all living creatures. Nevertheless, there are times when dying seems like the only solution to the suffering a human being may endure. As a society we have already given moral lenience to killing in war, self-defense, and the use of capital punishment, yet when it comes to the death of virtuous individuals by the hands of someone else, even if that someone is a medical professional, people hesitate. …show more content…
The Principle of Utility, developed by Jeremy Bentham and expanded on by future advocate John Stewart Mill, arguably holds one of the most straightforward foundations for ethical choices; whatever brings the most amount of happiness and the least amount of suffering is the morally right choice. If we were to apply such reasoning to an example of euthanasia; say a doctor who assists a man suffering from an immensely painful cancer in suicide, then the answer seems incredibly simple. If the doctor were to kill the man, it would undoubtedly end his suffering. According to Utilitarianism, to do anything else would be morally wrong. It is not only the best choice to make, but the doctor’s moral duty to grant the man his peace and bring the most happiness to the situation. By taking a Utilitarian perspective on this issue, it appears to be exceedingly wrong to take away a person’s control over their own life. It is that freedom of personal autonomy and the absence of suffering that sets the Utilitarian view of Euthanasia apart from others. Utilitarianism grants us the permission to accept such a death as morally …show more content…
Considering that we embody beliefs from many theories, as most humans tend to, then we see how holding parts of both views can make us feel at odds with ourselves. Utilitarians tell us that suffering is wrong. By their moral code, it is not only acceptable to kill a suffering person, but indeed a virtuous act. On the other hand, Kantians want us to think about the potential repercussions of that acceptance. What might come from the legalization of an innocent’s death? It could possibly result in all out anarchy. Kantians advise us to think not just of the happiness of individuals, but the value of life itself. From the eyes of an average person who holds, not one, but many perspectives on the subject of morality, it is easy to see how Euthanasia can seem both reasonable and unscrupulous at the exact same