Argumentative Essay On Euthanasia

Foot defines euthanasia as "a matter of opting for death for the good of the one who is to die." (Foot, p.100) She further justifies this argument by stating that as long as we put into consideration the interests of the person involved and only the benefits of that person that euthanasia can morally acknowledge. I believe that it

Assisted suicide is a morally right option for people that have completely exhausted their options and can 't bear to live their life anymore. Assisted suicide can be broken down into two categories: passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is allowing someone to die by not taking steps to prolong their life. It is essentially an act of omission (579). Active euthanasia is "taking a

Utilitarianism is a one of the ethical theory that was discussed in the first half of the class that applies to the case of Euthanasia.Utilitarianism is the moral worth of an action based on consequences (the greatest good principle). Therefore, utilitarianism can be applied to Euthanasia because it produce happiness for patients and their family by avoiding pain. However, I believe that Euthanasia should not be morally allowed. Euthanasia is an action done intentionally to end life to end the pain and sufferings from a terminal illness. It is also known assisted suicide, also morally wrong.

I agree with him on this point. While euthanasia can be helpful for someone in extreme amounts of pain, is it going against the will of god? I believe that the end of our life if something that we cannot determine, it is

Maybe he was taking medication that may have altered his thought process? It was the only rational that we could come to initially; being that he just killed the woman he loved his entire adult life, the one he walked down the alter with, the one he had children with, grandchildren with, and made a life with. Our feelings were of sadness, that he thought this was his only

For example, Smith’s personal feelings are further seen in his statement saying “Supporting another’s self-destruction … sends an unintentional but clear message to the person: Yes, your life is no longer worth living; you are a burden; you are better off dead (and we’re better off with you dead, too)” (Smith 8). Smith is basically and obviously testing the reader’s soft-heartedness with this statement by suggesting that one might think this at one point in the chaos of your loved one being sick. It strongly shows that making the best and most accurate choice of care after being done with treatments, that are not working any longer, is critical. Even though Smith disagrees with the care choice that Caplan suggests and thinks there are plenty of better options, Smith is still respectful towards Caplan and doesn’t bash him for his views. Smith suggests and believes in giving terminally ill patients both hope and the care of Hospice.

Thank you to N7 for accepting this debate. It is my first. I apologize up front if my formatting or technique is lacking. Feedback is appreciated. I affirm the resolution that “It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.” If you ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called “Trolley Problem.” This problem illustrates an example as implied by the resolution.

It’s immoral to be in favor of the death penalty. People who support it believe that by executing criminals well prevent them from murdering again, and they feel they deserve to feel the feeling of cruelty as they did to others. Citizens of the United States are fond to similar privileges and assurances. As Americans, we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People believe that if a murder takes this rights from a person, why should they still be connected to society?

The subject I am looking into is torture and the first article I am looking at is Torture-The Case for Dirty Harry, written by Uwe Steinhoff. Uwe Steinhoff is arguing that torture might just be more justifiable and morally okay than what most people may think. Steinhoff’s first argument towards this point is that people kill other people, and some killings are justified. Therefore, considering that torture is seemingly better than being killed, torture should be justified in that way that some of these killings are justified. A man by the name of Henry Shue counters this argument by basically saying that killing someone in combat may be do them greater harm than torturing them, but killing someone could remove the possible other harm that

To end someone’s life even for a better end shows what someone thinks of human life. Some ask why shouldn’t we be able to help someone’s misery by helping them die? Howard Ball is one to claim it is the compassionate thing to do. He says when a person we love is in misery we have an emotional response. He states that the best way to help another who is suffering is to assist them in the act of taking their own life.