Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Is it acceptable to end a human beings life who is in a critical state that is suffering through excruciating pain and suffering? In this essay, we will discuss how the philosophical principle of utilitarianism is applied to the complicated issue of euthanasia and the unique moral beliefs that come with different types of euthanasia. Im also going to discuss passive and active euthanasia from a utilitarian point of view as well as a unitarian perspective on non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia.
Euthanasia, often referred to as assisted suicide, is the act of terminating an individual from a hopeless illness or state. There are two primary forms of euthanasia. Aside from the fact that existence is being taken away from these individuals, the process varies from active to inactive. In all instances, however, their existence as a human being is going to be taken away from that individual who is suffering from an unforgiving disease. But active euthanasia is the idea of executing a person through a lethal injection to bring upon them a swift and seamless passing. Compared to this, passive euthanasia is when you kill the person by taking away something vital for them to stay alive. An example of this could be the removal of an individual’s life support or loss of medical care.
The second form of intentional killing is voluntary and non-voluntary death is the stage in which the person who is near death decides to seek euthanasia. Non-voluntary occurs when a terminally sick person is not in a condition to offer consent such that they may offer the consent to another individual. All of that being mentioned, and for the sake of this essay, I’m going to concentrate on that. Active-voluntary euthanasia from a moral point of view, euthanasia is a societal issue since most people do not accept that persons, specifically terminally sick patients with horrible suffering, will be allowed to end their lives. This is often particularly problematic because this individual is unwilling to give his permission. There is a lot of discussion about euthanasia, and It circles how it needs to be lawful. The discussion on euthanasia involves a variety of theological, psychological, and sociological viewpoints.
Jeremy Bentham, a London psychologist, was the founder of the ideas and moral theory called utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill Pg. 4). This implies that, from the point of view of utilitarianism, an event or activity will be performed in favor of the common good. What’s more, is that any ethical action will increase the overall good of the earth. If an activity is good, as it is, it increases the level of happiness in the world. This enables activities to be performed with tremendous consistency. If an action is carried out by a person, it is ethically right. Given the reality that if some action makes more than one person happier, the behavior is all the more ethically sound. Utilitarianism states that something is good or great because it provides the highest level of worth to the widest possible audience. It is the hypothesis of standardization of morality that questions if a given practice is fantastic or bad, virtuous or immoral.
The key concept of Bentham’s philosophy is the idea of usefulness. By utility is meant the property of something whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness (all equivalent in the present case) or (this being the same thing) to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered (Bentham Pg.7). Utility determines the satisfaction or unhappiness that comes from a single act. When implementing or considering something from the viewpoint of a sick patient, the controversy comes with whether or not that individual will be given relief from there suffering, for his pleasure, or endure indefinitely for the happiness of his loved ones. Mill depicts the distinction between enjoyment and consistency of happiness, or what makes one happiness more successful than another. When analyzing the delights, clearly as pleasure and that’s it, can be more popular to establish the best. Phase is split into better and lower-quality joys. In the unlikely possibility that the pleasure was of a better standard, more people would prefer it over equivalent happiness. As Mill points out, this is true, irrespective of the probability that this happiness will be accompanied by uneasiness and the same person will not substitute it for a more notable measure of the other happiness.
Despite all that being said regarding utilitarianism, and now extending utilitarianism to euthanasia, various philosophical frameworks arise with specific types of euthanasia. For this essay and point, I’m going to think about successful voluntary euthanasia. Mill’s Biggest Joy Theory tells us that, actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill Pg. 4). Mill should believe successful voluntary euthanasia as it contributes to the greater satisfaction of the victim and the relatives. From a practical point of view, thus, they should comply with successful voluntary euthanasia.
One challenge to utilitarianism is one of human freedom. People are trying to say that even because it makes others happier, that doesn’t make the behavior right. Think about things from a spiritual viewpoint, because it can be generalized to all areas of society. Take burglary, for starters. Is it unethical to rob a pharmacist for medication to treat your sick wife because you’re too poor to afford to pay for it? What’s more, isn’t it fair to harm other
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.