Philosophy Paper Free Essays

In this paper, I will discuss euthanasia and demonstrate its immoral implications using J. Gay-Williams’ essay, â€Å"The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia†; more specifically his attempt to show the wrongfulness of euthanasia through an argument from nature. I believe that the argument is valid and presents a very good approach for those who are opposed to euthanasia. We will write a custom essay sample on Philosophy Paper or any similar topic only for you Order Now Below is my effort to summarize this view by placing it in the standard argument format. Argument from Nature ) If there is a person in a situation, where a natural instinct compels them to take action, it is morally wrong to intentionally suppress that instinct. 2) In all euthanasia cases, there is a doctor is in a situation where their patient’s natural instinct compels them to survive. 3) Therefore, in all euthanasia cases, it is morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally suppress their patient’s natural instinct to survive. The argument above is derived from part one of Gay-Williams essay. He begins his discussion of the argument from nature by asserting that each person â€Å"has a natural inclination to continue living†. He displays this furthermore by explaining, that everything about the composition of a human organism has been designed to have a conditioned reaction that makes â€Å"the continuation of life a natural goal. † It is by this rationale he claims, â€Å"that euthanasia sets us against our own nature. † In order to further demonstrate the argument’s validity and good quality, I will explain how it follows all the rules of a good argument. The rules are as follows: 1) all the premises are reasonable 2) the conclusion follows 3) the argument does not beg the question. Premise one may be better explained in and of itself through an example having to do with a general, natural instinct. One example could be when someone is in a situation in which their family is put in harms way when an intruder with sinister motives enters their house. It is a natural reaction to protect that which belongs to you (in this situation your property-your â€Å"territory† and your blood- your family). To stand idly by and witness attacks upon your family and home, without in any way, making an effort to stop the attacks, would require an ntentional suppression of a natural instinct. Premise two becomes more specific by stating that in euthanasia cases throughout, a doctor is always in a situation in which their patient’s natural instincts compel them (for as we saw in the quotes from J. Gay-Williams, a human’s conditioned response in all situations-based on the make-up of the body-is to function in a way that would always enable (or lean towards) co ntinuity. ) to survive. The way to show that this argument follows rule number two is to reveal its logical pattern. ) If there is P (a person in a situation), where Q (a natural instinct compels them to take an action), it is R (morally wrong to intentionally suppress that instinct). 2) In all S (euthanasia cases), there is P (a doctor in a situation), where Q (their patient’s natural instinct compels them to survive). 3) Therefore, in all S (euthanasia cases), it is R (morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally suppress their patient’s natural instinct to survive). I think that this argument is good. The way in which Gay-Williams went about presenting his case was commendable. He did make brief reference to there being a God, and that human beings are supposed to act as â€Å"trustee of his body†, and in taking a life or our own, humans are acting against him. However, it seemed as though he was keeping in mind that many people might not share the same beliefs as he, and therefore needed to have rational arguments against euthanasia which pertained in no way to faith or religion. This was the admirable thing, because it seems that many times religious people, although trying to argue an important idea, seem to have no rational approach and end up â€Å"Bible-thumping†, and coming across as ignorant. One objection someone might have to this argument would be to premise two. Someone might say that the premise is generalizing when it says â€Å"all euthanasia cases†, because in certain cases of euthanasia a person might not be being kept alive through natural means any longer (such as: artificial life support); therefore, it can’t be said that the person’s natural instinct is to survive because without life support the person would have already died thus following the natural instinct towards death. My response to this objection would be the following: in my interpretation of J. Gay-Williams argument from nature, I used â€Å"In all euthanasia cases, there is a doctor is in a situation where their patient’s natural instinct compels them to survive. † As my second premise. And I must admit, that with this as the second premise, the argument is flawed as the objector revealed. However, if I were to make the second premise not end with â€Å"natural instinct compels them to survive† and rather put â€Å"natural instinct compels them† then it wouldn’t be a flawed argument. This is because it would merely be adding a twist on the argument, which Gay-Williams did not come right out and say, but it is implied. This twist that is implied is that it is morally wrong to go against any natural human instinct, and this includes the natural instinct of dying. Maybe then, the problem of removing someone or not removing someone from life support would no longer be the problem, due to the fact that artificial life support is preventing some people from allowing their bodies to follow the natural instinct to die. Now of course this seems a bit morbid, and I’m not at all suggesting that modern technology and what it can do to save lives is morally wrong, I’m simply showing what other routes this argument from nature implies. How to cite Philosophy Paper, Papers Philosophy Paper Free Essays While I have not personally experienced being in a position to choose between life and death, I have always been curious as to how such a decision could be made with complete consideration of ethical principles. I am particularly interested in the fact that the law recognizes the right of a patient to refuse medical treatment. This right includes the refusal of life-saving treatment, which could lead to death. We will write a custom essay sample on Philosophy Paper or any similar topic only for you Order Now The expression of a patient’s refusal could be made either before the administration of the treatment or at a prior and advanced time, well ahead of future incompetence (Michalowski). The recognition by the law of the patient’s right is so strong and resolute, such that the disregard of the patient’s wishes through the administration of medical treatment despite his refusal would amount to battery (Michalowski). However, despite the legal principles allowing, in certain circumstances, the decision to curtail a life or to halt the provision of life support systems, the question in my mind remains. Does a decision to continue or discontinue a life violative of an ethical principle? If so, I wonder up to what extent a decision to curtail or prolong one’s life would the action still be considered ethical. A patient is a person who has the right to decide everything that has to do with his own life. A popular position on this quandary is that together with this person’s right comes the responsibility to act responsibly. Before a patient’s refusal of medical treatment, it must be ensured that he is competent to make such an important decision. It must be ensured that he is apprised of all the facts necessary for him to make an intelligent decision. Thus, the patient must be told about the â€Å"nature and purpose of the procedure. † When making the decision, the patient must not be influenced by external factors. Finally, it must be made clear that the decision would apply to future circumstances (Michalowski, 2005). However, learning and understanding utilitarianism, an ethical theory developed by popular philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, I could not help but apply the theory in the situation described above. According to these philosophers, moral value of human actions should depend on the effect of such action on people (West). Thus, they did not believe that other factors, such as motive or will, have anything to do with morality (West). Indeed, utilitarianism has captured the interest of many people because it is often used to justify the morality of certain human actions, based on practical considerations. Following Bentham’s philosophy, the quandary could be resolved by taking into account the things that possibly motivate a man in his actions. Bentham and Mill worked on the assumption that only two possible things could motivate man (Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy). These are pleasure and pain. Man naturally desires happiness, but wants to avoid pain (West). The two utilitarian philosophers likewise believed that man only has one end, and such end is happiness, which is brought about by pleasure (Bentham; West). Thus, they formulated a thesis that holds that human action would be considered morally right or wrong, depending on whether it tends to promote happiness for the greatest number of people to promote happiness for the greatest number of people (Bentham). If so, such act would be morally right. Following Bentham’s rationalizations of his notion of utilitarianism, the dilemma could be analyzed following four points. First, it should be recognized that pain and pleasure play a fundamental role in human life (Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy). Thus, in the given scenario, both pain and pleasure would play out in varying degrees among the people involved, such as the patient, his friends and his family. Thereafter, it should be considered how human action gets the approval or disapproval of society. According to Bentham, such judgment by society is based on the action’s consequences (Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy). Thus, in application, the act of prolonging life support could affect society’s approval or non-approval depending on the consequences evoked by such an act, such as prolonged life or otherwise. The next consideration would involve the fact that pleasure is equated with good while pain is equated with evil (Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy). Finally, for utilitarian philosophers like Bentham, pleasure and pain could be measured through â€Å"quantification (Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy). † Thus, in the given scenario, I could rule on the morality of an act depending on certain criteria of evaluating pain or pleasure, such as the effected the consequences of the act of removing life support vis-a-vis the act of letting it continue. Thus, while other philosophies might accept the act of curtailing a person’s life based solely on the principle of patient autonomy, utilitarianism would not readily acquiesce in such a decision. Considerations based on the pain or pleasure it would impose on various interested stakeholders would have to be made. Only the solution that could offer the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people would be recognized by utilitarianism as the ethical course of action. Works Cited Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: Wilson Pickering, 1823. Michalowski, S. â€Å"Advance Refusals of Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment: The Relativity of an Absolute Right†. The Modern Law Review Limited 68. 6 (2005): 958-982. Online Guide to Ethics and Moral Philosophy. â€Å"Utilitarianism. † 2002. 19 Nov. 2008. http://caae. phil. cmu. edu/Cavalier/80130/part2/sect9. html. West, H. R. â€Å"Utilitarianism. † Encyclop? dia Britannica. 20 Nov. 2008. http://www. utilitarianism. com/utilitarianism. html. How to cite Philosophy Paper, Papers