The purpose of this paper is to apply a specific ethical system to a moral issue. The ethical system and moral issues chosen was: Provide utilitarian arguments for euthanasia. I will discuss the essence of euthanasia, then define utilitarianism, and then finish by providing utilitarian arguments that support euthanasia.
What is Euthanasia? Well, euthanasia is the act of taking one’s life in order to relieve them form their suffering. To undergo euthanasia, a person has to be in a terrible condition like an incurable disease or irreversible coma. The term euthanasia actually comes from the Greek word euthanatos which translates into, easy death. There are three different types of euthanasia which are voluntary (where the euthanasia is performed …show more content…
The first version starts with the founder, Jeremy Bentham, where the ethical system is developed around the idea of pleasure and pain. He built this ethical system on hedonism which avoided all physical pain and focused on physical pleasure. Bentham believed the acts that were most moral were acts that maximized pleasure and minimized pain (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, 2013). The second version is John Stewart Mill’s version where he then modified Bentham’s hedonistic philosophy. Mill focused one maximizing the general happiness by figuring out the greatest good for the most people (Lecture 3, 2017). Those who believe in Stewarts philosophy believe that any action should cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and the end result is what should determine the moral worth of the action. So, the basic concept is if one’s action is benefit the “greater good” of the most people, then the action is deemed moral. With Stuarts view of utilitarianism there are two different interpretations of it. The first interpretation is act utilitarianism and that is the view that we assess the rightness or wrongness of each act by its tendency to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest people. The second interpretation is rule utilitarianism which says that we should use the greatest happiness principle not for each individual act, but to arrive at general rules for the society to keep (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, …show more content…
Euthanasia will increase the utiles of a terminally ill patient but it will also decrease the utiles that represent the pain that they are going through. Even though that person is alive they are not living the most pleasurable life desired, they are hooked up to machines, taking medicine that puts them through pain, and fighting for their life. So, it would morally correct to let the person undergo euthanasia because they are ridding themselves from that pain. The argument can also be seen through Stewarts points of view as well because letting the patient undergo the euthanasia does the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. The friends and family members of the person obviously want the person to live out of selfish context but at what cost. If a disease is slowly making its way through their loved one’s body, why would they want them to go through that or watch them go through that? The euthanasia will be good because the friends and family members will be put at peace knowing that their loved one is no longer suffering from horrendous pain. We also cannot forget how expensive medical bills are. The family in a sense will be relieved of the burden of having to keep up with the medical expenses that could be a pain to them, thus everyone is gaining pleasure
What is Euthanasia? Well, euthanasia is the act of taking one’s life in order to relieve them form their suffering. To undergo euthanasia, a person has to be in a terrible condition like an incurable disease or irreversible coma. The term euthanasia actually comes from the Greek word euthanatos which translates into, easy death. There are three different types of euthanasia which are voluntary (where the euthanasia is performed …show more content…
The first version starts with the founder, Jeremy Bentham, where the ethical system is developed around the idea of pleasure and pain. He built this ethical system on hedonism which avoided all physical pain and focused on physical pleasure. Bentham believed the acts that were most moral were acts that maximized pleasure and minimized pain (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, 2013). The second version is John Stewart Mill’s version where he then modified Bentham’s hedonistic philosophy. Mill focused one maximizing the general happiness by figuring out the greatest good for the most people (Lecture 3, 2017). Those who believe in Stewarts philosophy believe that any action should cause the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and the end result is what should determine the moral worth of the action. So, the basic concept is if one’s action is benefit the “greater good” of the most people, then the action is deemed moral. With Stuarts view of utilitarianism there are two different interpretations of it. The first interpretation is act utilitarianism and that is the view that we assess the rightness or wrongness of each act by its tendency to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest people. The second interpretation is rule utilitarianism which says that we should use the greatest happiness principle not for each individual act, but to arrive at general rules for the society to keep (Stewart, Blocker, & Petrik, …show more content…
Euthanasia will increase the utiles of a terminally ill patient but it will also decrease the utiles that represent the pain that they are going through. Even though that person is alive they are not living the most pleasurable life desired, they are hooked up to machines, taking medicine that puts them through pain, and fighting for their life. So, it would morally correct to let the person undergo euthanasia because they are ridding themselves from that pain. The argument can also be seen through Stewarts points of view as well because letting the patient undergo the euthanasia does the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. The friends and family members of the person obviously want the person to live out of selfish context but at what cost. If a disease is slowly making its way through their loved one’s body, why would they want them to go through that or watch them go through that? The euthanasia will be good because the friends and family members will be put at peace knowing that their loved one is no longer suffering from horrendous pain. We also cannot forget how expensive medical bills are. The family in a sense will be relieved of the burden of having to keep up with the medical expenses that could be a pain to them, thus everyone is gaining pleasure