The second reason is that the duty of not killing someone is dischargeable. Third, if we do not succeed in saving a dying individual, we essentially leave open the possibility that someone else might come along and save them. Lastly, some philosophers consistently believe that letting someone die is not as bad as killing because of the difference in the intention behind the two kinds of actions (James Rachel, Killing and Letting Die). Rachel’s argument towards both Active Euthanasia and Passive Euthanasia is accurate in the sense that Active Euthanasia is morally wrong and in some cases Passive Euthanasia is acceptable. Let’s take the scenario of the patient who is dying of incurable cancer of the throat and is in terrible pain.
Virtue ethics started drawing attention since the modern ethics exposed its limitation and reconsideration about the priority was needed. Contemporary ethics focus on “What we should do”, instead of “What kind of person we should do”. In consequence, the moral codes in modern era solely emphasizes moral duty and rules, while neglecting personality and character of individuals. Virtue ethics support the traditional criterion that consider moral virtue and personality of individuals as important. The virtue of good engineer includes creativity, good understanding of culture, morality, and capability of communication.
In general, on a popular argument for ethical relativism would be the untenability of objectivism. It is a persuasive justification for moral relativism because it is the best alternative following the failure of objectivism. The fact that moral objectivists themselves are uncertain, incongruent and unsettled on a standard moral system is the primary catalyst encouraging moral skepticism (IEP, Argument for Moral Relativism). Cultural relativism outlines that “an action is morally right, relative to a culture, just because it is right according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” Conversely, if “an action is morally wrong, relative to a culture, just because it is wrong according to the moral code which is generally accepted in that culture.” (Luco, Week 3 Notes, p.9) Cultural Relativism is simply a combination of the following three theses: 1. The only criterion of moral truth or falsehood is the moral code of a cultural group.
As humans, the Aristotelian idea says we have the ability to act upon what the think is right, and dignity is a choice we are fond of. For medical staff to make sure a patient does not leave this world with indignities done, we should be able to do what needs to be done for the person to make them comfortable, even that means their decision is to die via assisted suicide. If we know a the patient is suffering from pain or has become depressed for a reason that their dignity has been wronged (Allmark 255). In summarization, assisted suicide should be a pro choice. Many people do not want to
First, the theory of ethical egoism. According to this theory, “actions are morally right because they maximize self-interest” (Farias, 2012, slide 6). When occupational therapists agree to perform duties or work on skills that are outside of the OT scope of services, they are working to promote their own self-interests and well-being. It feels good to help others and when we believe that we are going above and beyond to keep our clients happy, we are doing what is in our best interests. Since ethical egoism states that “it is individualistic, and the right thing to do is maximize one’s own utility,” then this dilemma holds true (Burgess-Jackson, 2013, p. 532).
The philosopher Ayn Rand believed that an individual’s life is of the utmost importance, as is her well-being. She knew that altruistic ethics require individuals to sacrifice their own wellbeing and lives for the sake of others. With ethical egoism, and will value their own wellbeing above all others. So, she was for ethical egoism. Ayn Rand also had an argument against ethical egoism believing it is a mistake to treat the interest of some individuals as being less important than the interest of others.
Or, this is due to the fact that unless she interferes and puts an end to his life, that his life will be so horrible he’d be better off dead. Hence, the main reason that the person who carries out the act of euthanasia is that they want to accommodate the one whose death is imminent. “It is important to emphasize the motive of benefiting the person who is assisted to die because well-being is a key value in relation to the morality of euthanasia.” (Young) This is also clear as day in many cases of physician-assisted suicide. Some argue that for Euthanasia, “Once legalized, euthanasia will not be used just for those facing serious illnesses, but those who are depressed.” (Mezban) Past philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Locke were opposed suicide. For this reason, they viewed euthanasia as suicide, regardless of how much pain or suffering the person was dealing
This provides an adequate definition of what a benevolent person is. She then continues “This, then, seems to be the way in which seeing states of affairs in which people are happy as good states of affairs really is an essential part of morality” (48), arguing that it must be part of morality to try to have people happy. She then draws an important distinction between having benevolence as an essential part of morality, and having it as the end of morality. “But it is very important that we have found this end within morality, and forming part of it, not standing outside it as the ‘good state of affairs’ by which moral action in general is to be judged.” (48). She goes on to explain that other virtues can supersede benevolence, which provides proof that benevolence is not the ultimate end.
This about all mankind,” Matt Damon’s performance and the film to that point suggests this is an ethical smokescreen he uses to assuage his guilt over the inhumane actions he is taking. Mann purports to be motivated by humanity’s survival, but it is clear that he places self-preservation above all other
Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories. The divine command theory says that what is morally right and what is morally wrong is determined by God and God alone. People who follow the divine command theory believe that God is the creator of all things, therefore, he must also be the creator of morally right and wrong acts.