© Michael Lacewing Reason and experience Michael Lacewing [email protected].
Euthanasia Michael Lacewing [email protected] © Michael Lacewing.
-
Upload
jody-butler -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
3
Transcript of Euthanasia Michael Lacewing [email protected] © Michael Lacewing.
![Page 1: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Euthanasia
Michael Lacewingenquiries@alevelphilosoph
y.co.uk
© Michael Lacewing
![Page 2: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Euthanasia• 6 types
– Involuntary, voluntary, non-voluntary
– Passive, active
![Page 3: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Utilitarian thoughts• Act utilitarianism
– Look at each act of euthanasia individually; not making a rule
– Involuntary: person doesn’t want to die, so is made unhappy by the thought of their death
– Voluntary: person does want to die, often believing they will be less unhappy by dying
![Page 4: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Morality v. legality• One of the most common arguments against euthanasia is the possibility of abuse (pressure from relatives) or bad choices (from pain or depression).
• Whether a practice should be legalized is a separate debate from whether it is moral acceptable.
• These arguments are only relevant when looking at rule utilitarianism.
![Page 5: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Metaethics and practical ethics
• Act utilitarianism says that the (objectively) right thing to do may vary in different situations (including what people want). This is different from saying that what is right is subjective.
• Don’t get into metaethics– The premise of practical ethics is that we are searching for the (or a) right thing to do. So don’t start talking about relativism or subjectivism.
![Page 6: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Kant on suicide
• Euthanasia is sometimes called assisted suicide.
• Kant argued that people who commit suicide destroy their rationality in service to something else – pain.– So asking for euthanasia does not show respect for our own rationality.
• This doesn’t cover cases in which the person loses their reason.
![Page 7: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Kant on suicide
• We may agree that rationality is what bestows dignity on human beings, and we must respect people’s dignity. – A human being who may lose their dignity through illness may legitimately request euthanasia.
• We respect and protect their dignity by helping them die in circumstances of their own choosing.
• But it is not right to help someone do something that is morally wrong.
![Page 8: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Active v. passive euthanasia
• Is there a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia?
• Act utilitarianism: no• Deontology: yes
– Active: more like murder, in that there is intervention to cause death: justice
– Passive: often combined with intended pain relief: charity
![Page 9: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Justice and charity
• Justice: we must not kill people
• Charity: we should help others, not let them die– Not giving to charity is not as bad as actually killing people the money would have saved
– But not providing your child with food is murder.
![Page 10: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Justice and charity
• In voluntary euthanasia, the person wants to die.– Do we have a duty not to kill even those who want to die?
– Do doctors have a special duty not to kill their patients?
– But doctors should do what is best for their patients, which may mean killing them.
![Page 11: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
The doctrine of double effect
• We may bring about a foreseen harmful effect in pursuit of a good end– The good end is intended, the harmful effect is unintended
– If we could bring about the good end without the harmful effect, we would
• High doses of painkillers can bring about death more quickly
![Page 12: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Two practical points• Separate empirical (sociology, psychology) from philosophical– E.g. don’t spend long discussing whether or not a slippery slope would actually occur.
• The conclusion is often conditional– E.g. ‘if allowing voluntary euthanasia in some cases caused people to seek it wrongly, then it would be wrong to allow it at all’
![Page 13: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Complexity• So is voluntary euthanasia permissible?
• Utilitarianism– Pro: Individuals suffer differently– Con: It has bad consequences, so look at better alternatives
• Deontology– Pro: We should respect people’s choices– Con: Bringing about death unnecessarily is always wrong
![Page 14: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Complexity
• Virtue theory (and deontology)– Active euthanasia is unjust?– (Passive) euthanasia is not unjust, and is charitable
![Page 15: Euthanasia Michael Lacewing enquiries@alevelphilosophy.co.uk © Michael Lacewing.](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022072005/56649cf45503460f949c24f0/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Two final practical points
• Avoid oversimplification– Normative theories might not deliver just one answer, but give reasons both for and against. Noting this is important for evaluation.
• Don’t say ‘Who knows? Who can say?’– You are the thinker – this is your attempt to try to say.
– Why think practical ethics should or could be easy?