Euthanasia Debate: Religious Law vs. Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Euthanasia Debate: Religious Law vs. Utilitarianism The debates surrounding euthanasia and its legalization continue to be very pertinent issues in the modern day society which is increasing having to deal with the ever rising cancer and morbidity rates. While the etymology of euthanasia reflects mercy killing or good death, no one has ever managed to understand the true meaning behind killing with mercy or good death. Nevertheless, the term euthanasia is seen to generally imply and easy and gentle process of death. There are a number of ethical arguments that have been fronted both in support, and in opposition to the practice of euthanasia and this paper will focus on using religious laws and the principles of utilitarianism to show just how the euthanasia debate is a classic case of religious law versus utilitarianism. Euthanasia has been described as the termination of the life of a very sick patient with the sole objective of attempting to try and help them in relieving their suffering. Persons that opt for euthanasia tend to suffer from a range of often very painful and incurable conditions; of note however, is that there are instances where health and strong individual seek to use euthanasia with the objective of just wanting their lives to end. In conducting euthanasia, it is a general requirement that a patient first makes a special request for the procedure to be administered, in the event that a suffering patient happens to be too sick to make this crucial decision, this responsibility is left to medics, the relatives and in some special instances, the courts. Euthanasia has been able to rise a number of generally agonizing moral dilemmas that seek to answer question such as; is ever morally right for a person to engage in ending the life of a terminally ill person that happens to be undergoing severe suffering and pain? Is there any moral difference between actually killing a person and opting to not give a suffering person any support so as to allow them to just die? Are there any instances where euthanasia is ever justifiable? The ethical and moral considerations that surround euthanasia have resulted in the development of numerous debates. Fundamentally, all the various debates surrounding euthanasia are seen to reflect the classic case of religious law on the opposing end versus utilitarianism on the supporting end. Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is one of the different forms of teleology. Teleology is basically the ethical theory that determines wrongness or rightness solely based on an estimation of the probable outcome. Utilitarianism is widely perceived to be the most well-known definition of moral rule. In utilitarianism, a rule is only considered to be a moral rule in the event that a universal obedience to this rule would ultimately result in the promotion of the greatest happiness (Hitchcock et al. 142). Rules that promote the greatest degree of happiness are regarded as having greater utility as a result of their bringing about the largest number of good consequences, the least number of evil consequences and by extension of this, a greater degree of good than evil as a whole. Utilitarianism is seen to be primarily based on the utility or usefulness as opposed to being based on duty or moral obligation. Taken literally, the universal obedience to the rule encouraging one to do good to everyone would provide happiness to everyone and would undoubtedly increase the level of happiness in the world by a significant degree (Gert 120). Utilitarianism and Euthanasia The principles of utilitarianism are seen to support euthanasia as practicing euthanasia will result in ending the suffering of the affected person which in turn translates to the choice to end life being perceived as causing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. In developing utilitarianism, John Stuart Mills believed that there were actually two classes of pleasure; these two are the lower and upper classes. According to Mills, the higher class of pleasure refers to a person’s basic intellect while the lower class of pleasure refers to the body. In the event the event that a suffering individual is faced with the choice as to whether they should be euthanized, utilitarianism dictates that we should agree that the person’s pride and the absence of pain should be taken into careful consideration. According to Mills, terminally ill patients that are no longer capable of making relevant intellectual pursuits and are in constant pain and must rely on others so as to have their needs met (Tulloch 80-83). These persons should be afforded the more dignified option of putting an end to their suffering. This will fulfill the absence of pain principle that points out that pain can actually cause a person to largely be unable to seek any of the higher pleasures via the engagement of intellectual pursuits. Religious Law Religious law characterizes morality as one of the basic functions of the rational human nature that has been granted to us by God. Religious law stresses that God’s original purposes in creation should be used to define our purpose as human beings and as an extension, this should dictate how we should lead our lives. Religious law deals in a number of moral attributes which should never be broken regardless of the current situation. As we are always supposed to avoid all forms of evil and good, the end should therefore not be used to justify the means and therefore there is no amount of suffering that can be used in the justification of an evil act (Bowie 61). Religious Law and Euthanasia Religious law currently plays a major role in the euthanasia debate as the more conscious and committed society is to religion the less is suicide cases. Under religious law, all the ethical decisions that determine if voluntary euthanasia should be undertaken must all begin with the determination of whether it can ever be considered as right to intentionally kill a human being. A key primary precept of natural law is the preservation and protection of the innocent. Life is considered to be a sacred gift from God by most religions and as such it should never be attacked or willfully terminated; As a result of the great sanctity that is placed on life by religious law, it is an absolute moral law that one should never engage in using euthanasia as a means of killing innocent people (Valasquez 516). Evaluation of the approaches Utilitarianism and Religious law are seen to fundamentally disagree on the issue of euthanasia in that while utilitarianism generally supports the practice of administering euthanasia; religious law is seen to fundamentally disagree with this principle. Utilitarianism supports euthanasia while arguing that ending a patient’s painful suffering helps in reliving their pain and as such, results in the promotion of the greatest happiness (Tulloch 80-83). This view is commonly opposed by religious law that questions whether it is every right to kill another person. Whatever future good that life might happen to hold for an individual, this good is destroyed when they are killed. Religious law goes on to challenge utilitarianism by arguing that if happiness is good, then it stand to reason that killing is bad because when one die, the person is no longer happy. Another challenge against utilitarianism that is argued by religious law is that if the satisfaction of an individual’s preferences is a good thing, then killing is bad as it is impossible for one’ preferences to be satisfied in the event of death. These arguments by religious laws against euthanasia as supported by utilitarianism are adequately countered by the fact that if the future life of the person being euthanized potentially stands to hold more negative elements as is the case with painful terminal illnesses, not allowing the person to be euthanized will trigger an increase in their unhappiness which will then translate into increased unhappiness in the world. Stuart Mills argues that we are the best guardians and judges of our own selves (Tulloch 80-83). In a classic example, Mills points out that in the event that one happens to seen individuals attempting to cross a bridge that they don’t know to be unsafe, it is important for the individual aware of the unsafe condition of the bridge to immediately alert those attempting to cross it of the possible danger while preventing them from crossing this bridge. However, if these persons still persist on crossing the bridge, they should be allowed to do so as they are the only ones who are able to balance the importance of crossing the bridge against the possible loss of their lives in the event that the bridge happens to collapse. Conclusion Utilitarianism and Religious law each pick an opposing side in the debate surrounding euthanasia. According to utilitarianism, the only moral rule to be used in determining whether an individual should engage in euthanasia is if the end result will be for the greater good. This position is however, countered by religious law that argues that the sanctity of life is absolute and as life is a gift from God, it should never be willfully ended. These opposing arguments in which no side is able to obtain a clear upper hand over the other shows that yet again, the euthanasia debate is a classic case of religious law versus utilitarianism. Works Cited Bowie Robert. AS/A2 Philosophy of Religious and Religious Ethics for OCR. Nelson Thornes. 2004. Print. Gert Bernard. Morality: its nature and justification. New York [u.a.] : Oxford Univ. Press. 1998. Print. Hitchcock Janice et al. Community health nursing: caring in action. Australia: Thomson/Delmar Learning. 2003. Print. Tulloch Gail, Euthanasia : choice and death. Edinburgh : Edinburgh University Press. 2007. Print. Velasquez Manuel. Philosophy: a text with readings. Belmont, CA : Thomson Higher Education. 2008. Print. Read More