Moral dilemma of whether euthanasia is ethically acceptable - Essay Example

? Moral Dilemma of Whether Euthanasia is Ethically Acceptable Table of Contents I. Introduction 3 II. Covering the Theories in Brief 3 A. Cultural Relativism 3 B. Utilitarianism 5 C. Kantian Ethics 6 III. Weighing the Ethics of Euthanasia, Tackling the Dilemma of Its Ethical Acceptability 7 A. Cultural Relativism 7 B. Utilitarianism 8 C. Kantian Ethics 9 III. Conclusion 10 Works Cited 11 I. Introduction This paper weighs in on the ethics of euthanasia as it applies to elderly people near death and suffering, and in the context of such people being in nursing homes and hospices, being administered end of life care. My own experience visiting, interacting with residents and workers, and reflecting on those experiences at Brandon Woods is the mine of concrete experience on which I intend to draw insights into the ethics of euthanasia. This paper situates the discussion of the ethical acceptability of euthanasia in such elderly care settings from the perspective of at least three normative theories of ethics: Kant’s, utilitarianism, and cultural relativism II. Covering the Theories in Brief A. Cultural Relativism Cultural relativism basically posits that cultural perspectives color what is moral and ethical, and so people from one culture differ from another in terms of what they deem to be moral and ethical, or immoral and unethical. In other words, this perspective takes off from the observation in the natural world, that societies have differing takes on what is right and wrong, so that what is right and wrong in one culture may be at odds with how people in another culture view what is right and wrong. The texts give the example of the Eskimos, for instance, who have differing views on marriage, sex, infanticide, and taking care of the elderly from the west. The text further give the example of two differing cultures having differing takes on what is right and wrong when it comes to disposing of their dead fathers, with one culture practicing what the other culture deems to be immoral and unethical, and vice versa. The practices are eating the dead and cremating them. At the heart of cultural relativism is the position that morality is something that is arbitrary, or at most the result of how different cultures form their opinions about what is right and wrong. In this sense there is no absolute right and wrong, and that everything is a matter of practice, as well as of opinion. The flaw from this conclusion is also made evident in the text. Two or more cultures with differing ethical beliefs do not necessarily rule out the existence of an absolute moral and ethical standard. For instance, that one culture deems eating the bodies of their dead fathers unethical, and that another deems burning the remains of their dead fathers unethical, does not mean that there is no absolute moral and ethical standard with regard to disposing of the remains of dead fathers. It is just that two or more cultures differ in their beliefs. Similarly, that Eskimos differ in their beliefs from western society about marriage and selectively killing children does not mean that there are no absolute ethical standards concerning killing infants, and concerning swinging partners and leaving old people to die in the cold. For another example that drives home this point, that one culture views the world as flat rather than round, or that one culture deems the world to be created rather than being the product of evolution, does not mean that there is no absolute truth with regard to the roundness of the earth, or the validity of the proof of evolution theory. The problems with cultural relativism are compounded when one takes off from the premises of the theory and then pursues their logical consequences to the end. For instance, if morality and ethics are relative, then one culture is no better than the other, and there can be no talk of ethical or moral progress. There is only the relative belief of one culture as the basis of ethical judgment. This conclusion flies in the face of historical developments that see morality and ethics as evolutionary, and of cultures being far from infallible when determining what is moral and ethical from what is not (Rachels 55-60). B. Utilitarianism The basic premise of utilitarianism is that the consequences of an act is the measure by which the morality and ethics of an action is to be judged. The operative principle is the greatest happiness and pleasure for the greatest number. It is utilitarian ethics because the focus is on the utility of an action to secure the good of the greatest number. It is to be opposed from an ethics that judges the act itself, with no regard to the merits of the consequences. The utilitarian mantra can be summed up in the phrase the greatest good for the greatest number, or else in the saying that the ends justify the means. In other words, a utilitarian ethics posits that the morality or ethics of an action is not to be taken in isolation to the act in itself, but rather to the degree that the action secures the means for the greatest number of people to achieve happiness and the enjoy the pleasures that they desire (Mill; West; Driver). The credit for trying to grade the different kinds of pleasures in order to grade the morality or ethics of the actions required to secure those pleasures, meanwhile, goes to Mill. The utilitarian ethics of Mill tries to differentiate between different kinds of pleasures, and assigns a superior ethics to those actions that secure superior over inferior pleasures. For instance, those actions that secure the intellectual pleasures are more ethical in comparison to those actions that secure the physical and sensual pleasures of the many. Moreover, Mill’s utilitarian ethics version puts seriousness and materiality to the internal emotions and sanctions that people naturally feel within when undertaking some actions over others. Those internal emotions form part of the considerations when one makes judgments over the ethics and morality of an action, on top of the traditional formulaic prescriptions of the theory relating to determining the ethics of an action from the action’s utilitarian values with regard to the securing of pleasure (Driver). C. Kantian Ethics The gist of Kantian ethics, meanwhile, is summarized in his categorical imperative, which sees every man not as means to other ends, but as ends in themselves. This, according to Kant, is the prescription from pursuing reason to the end, and seeing that man is inviolable in his dignity, and essentially in his being treated not for any utilitarian purpose, but as an end. Man according to Kant is not an instrument, but rather a subjectivity worthy of respect as an end in himself. This is the prescription of Kant, that all those actions are moral and ethical, which are done in the spirit of treating other people in this manner, and not for any other end purpose. The consequences of such a prescription are profound. Kant is saying that morality and ethics are absolute matters, and not relative as other theories propound. Cultural relativism argues that morality and ethics are a matter of social and cultural convention, yet Kant posits that to the contrary, there is an absolute gauge for judging the morality and ethics of an action, and that absolute standard is that of seeing and treating other people as ends in themselves, worthy of the highest form of respect, and not to be regarded for their usefulness to achieve another end. The implications of this Kantian ethics is also profound in contrast to the utilitarian ethics of Mill. To Mill the implication is that people are only valuable in so far as they help secure other ends, and those ends are of higher importance than the people used to secure them. Kant, on the other hand, flips this thinking on its head, and posits that in fact, there is no end that can justify treating people as anything other than as ends in themselves. The utilitarian ethics fails the criterion of the categorical imperative of Kant, because for the utilitarians people are merely instruments, and that the discomfort and pain of the minority are the natural casualties of a utilitarian ethics. For Kant, on the other hand, if even one person is used as an end to secure a pleasure, then that act is itself immoral and unethical, because the act compromises the treatment of that one aggrieved person as a just a means to achieve an end. The proper ethical response should be to treat that person as an end, and to abandon that action as immoral and unethical (Kant; Johnson). III. Weighing the Ethics of Euthanasia, Tackling the Dilemma of Its Ethical Acceptability A. Cultural Relativism The prime example in the text of the cultural relativism of the treatment of old people in one society is that of the treatment of elderly people in Eskimo communities. In essence they are abandoned in the snow and left to fend for themselves when they become too weak to take care of themselves. This is a kind of passive euthanasia, one can argue, given that old Eskimos are basically left to their own devices, in harsh conditions, and without the ability to further take care of themselves. This is acceptable in Eskimo society, and impliedly deemed as ethical and moral, even as the west may shun this as being harsh and unethical, and against common decency standards even. Banning euthanasia, even when the elderly patients want it, and even in the face of great suffering and pain on the part of the elderly dying and their families, can be construed as being immoral and unethical on the part of the Eskimos, meanwhile. These latter practices are accepted as moral and ethical in western society. To prolong lives the west put their elderly in nursing homes, and administer aggressive interventions to keep them alive, even when they want to die themselves, and the interventions prolong the suffering rather than ease them. The flaw in this cultural relativism argument, as has been identified earlier meanwhile, is that it does not take into account the possibility that there is an absolute morality relating to euthanasia and the elderly. The beliefs of the Eskimos in no way validate or invalidate an absolute ethics on euthanasia for the terminally ill and the very old (Rachels 55-60). B. Utilitarianism Mills tempers a purely utilitarian view of a situation with things like how one feels about an action, and how such feelings of guilt and shame factor into ethical judgments. From a purely utilitarian view euthanasia for the elderly can be ethically justified, especially if such actions secure the pleasure and well-being of a greater number of people, including the family of the elderly, who may be relieved of the financial and emotional burden of continuing to support the life of their suffering family member. From the point of view of the one suffering too, euthanasia can be justified ethically on the grounds that it secure the well-being of the suffering elderly, who by euthanasia is able to escape from the pain of continued living in a diseased and dying body. On the other hand, in my own experience visiting Brandon Woods, there was the instance of the old dying man fighting it out rather than succumbing to the temptation of dying via euthanasia, even if that would have been the easier and route. In the society where he lived it so happened that euthanasia is illegal too, and that adds to the pressure for the man to just live out his life. His beliefs mattered to, and those beliefs reinforced the legal prohibition. Meanwhile, from the perspective of the family, which was suffering, and the point of view of the dying man, it would have made sense from a utilitarian ethical view point to euthanize the old man, because it secures the pleasure of more people; in this case the cessation of the suffering is the pleasure. On the other hand, any remorse or guilt that the family or the community feels over the euthanasia can also impact the evaluation of the overall morality and ethics of any such act (Mill; West; Driver). C. Kantian Ethics Kant’s categorical imperative is simple when applied to euthanasia for the elderly, and the criterion is whether euthanasia treats the person dying as an end in himself, rather than as a means to another end. On the other hand the application of Kantian ethics is tricky too. For instance, where one is to let a dying man live on, in spite of the great pain, does his judgment carry sanity, or can one deem that the man is incapable of good judgment, and cannot be relied on to make a rational decision regarding his fate. Moreover, with regard to a man with full control of his rational faculties, and given that the family is in agreement with the man, who is to decide whether the government and the law has the right to intervene against the euthanasia and continue to ban it? In principle it makes sense that the elderly should be treated as people and as ends in themselves, and not as inputs in a more generalized calculation of the public good. The good of the dying is its own end. On the other hand determining what is good for the dying is tricky too, regardless of the sincerity of the intention of applying Kant’s categorical imperative. Here we have to try to gain insight from human experience in its collective aspects. In practical terms, this may mean, as in the case of the man I encountered in the field, just respecting his wishes and making the assumption that he knows what is best for him. In other cases though, treating the person as an end may mean getting inputs from family, from the humanities, from experts, from religious authorities, and from other concerned parties with unique insights into the human condition and the condition of old people who are about to die (Kant; Johnson). III. Conclusion It is clear that out of the three theoretical perspectives, the Kantian ethical prescription offers a way for resolving the dilemma of ethically dealing with the dying and of euthanasia for old people about to die. The prescription to consider the welfare and interests of the dying as paramount is wise, and flows from treating the dying as ends in themselves, rather than as means to other ends, such as saving money for government, considering the social impact of euthanasia, and all such other considerations, which really do not matter in Kantian ethics. On the other hand, even with the sincere application of the categorical imperative, other problems tied to the dilemma remain unresolved, and in many cases decisions are to be tempered and informed by the wisdom of many parties, including the family. All these, meanwhile, are to take place within the context of treating the dying with the respect and dignity that they deserve (Kant; Johnson). Works Cited Driver, Julia. “The History of Utilitarianism”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2009. Web. 25 November 2012. Johnson, Robert. “Kant’s Moral Philosophy”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2004. Web. 25 November 2012. Kant, Immanuel. “The Categorical Imperative”. From Wonder to Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy. Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism”. Utilitarianism.com. 1863. Web. 25 November 2012. West, Henry. “Utilitarianism”. Utilitarianism.com. n.d. Web. 25 November 2012. Rachels, James. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism”. Ethics by Authority Read More