The Aspect of Euthanasia in the Perspective Utilitarian and Kantian Analysis Essay

Introduction

In essence, euthanasia is the practice of killing an individual or an animal on the basis of human reasons, especially in case one suffers unbearably or experiences a poor health condition. In this light, there are two types of euthanasia, which are passive and active euthanasia. In passive euthanasia, a patient is allowed to die after withholding the necessary treatment while active euthanasia involves killing a patient out of a control measure that causes the death of an individual. There are various ethical principles that are related to this practice. This paper will feature euthanasia in the perspective of utilitarian and Kantian principles.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Aspect of Euthanasia in the Perspective of Utilitarian

The question whether it is appropriate to end the life of an individual who is in a great pain has been a debated issue for the last couple of decades now. This paper intends to look at the ethical theory of Utilitarian as it applies to the aspect of euthanasia. Apparently, there are various distinctive and moral positions which are held to the account of euthanasia. Therefore, this paper will look at both positive and negative perspective of euthanasia in relation to utilitarian.

Primarily, applying the aspect of euthanasia to utilitarian, utilitarian articulates that the overall happiness of a mass of individuals is with no doubt the greatest consequence and because euthanasia is mercy killing then they correlate in some ways. For instance, this might be applied in a situation where a doctor intends to save a particular patient and the patient die, while there is another doctor who causes the patient to die on purpose and had no intention of saving the patient. Since both doctors had a moral judgment, a utilitarian would not care about the outcome.

There are indeed varied moral positions regarding different forms of utilitarianism. In this light, the active form of voluntary euthanasia is tipped to guide an individual to the highest form of happiness of a patient as well as of a family (Steven, 23). Noteworthy, it is no surprise that many people agree with the aspect of active and voluntary euthanasia as expressed from the viewpoint of a utilitarian.

An open objection of utilitarianism sums up individual rights. In this, regard, it is normal for people to raise their complaint that, because something makes an individual happy does not mean the whole action is right. One has to think this aspect of a moral viewpoint as it can be applied to various scenarios in life (Steven, 23). Let us take an example of burglary, is it right for one to go and steal money from the hospital because he or she cannot afford the bills? Certainly, it does not appear to be the right decision to hurt other individuals with an aim of fulfilling a particular goal. Essentially, the act of utilitarianism assumes that people ought to consistently act remembering the actual end goal. Those people that protest are likely to say that this idea is an excessively strict form of a necessity (Steven, 23). It is, therefore, soliciting particularly for an individual to be encouraged to advance the general satisfaction. What is likely to happen when the general pleasure has been accomplished? There are certainly going to be those people who will be unsatisfied with the whole idea and thus the circle will go on and on. Therefore, it is essential for an individual to understand the definitive result of their actions.

Primarily, the act of voluntary active euthanasia can sometimes be permissible morally. Apparently, keeping utilitarian in mind, it is the understanding of many that active euthanasia comes with a lot of advantages (Steven, 23). Essentially, this is because it cuts off the suffering that an individual or a family might be undergoing. Moreover, the medical resources and the paramedics had an aim of keeping the patient alive at all cost, but since the death of this patient is certain, their services can be used to cure other patients. The families of that patient are also relieved from the financial burden. By practicing euthanasia, some people are given the sense of autonomy and are in overall control of others particularly in deciding the manner and period their lives should be terminated.

Conversely, the act of euthanasia is sometimes referred to be an act of the divine will of God where it interferes with the natural order that God created for all human being. In this sense, killing human life becomes a great violation of the commandments of God. Nonetheless, according to Vincent Barry, modern medicines have as well interfered with the set plans of God as it has prolonged the lives of those who could have died earlier (Steven, 23). Therefore, if people judge active euthanasia to be a wrong and immoral act, then prolonging people's life is as well an immoral act because it is against the divine will of God.

Despite the fact that there might be split opinions on whether the act of euthanasia is wrong or right, the overall intentions is an immoral and against ethical approaches. While there are some correlations between the ultimate goals of utilitarianism and euthanasia, the overall outcome has to be measured and does not have to be for the happiness of the majority, but it has to be morally upright.

The Aspect of Euthanasia in the Perspective of Kantian Ethics

This section will discuss the aspect of euthanasia in relation to the theory of Kant's deontology ethics. In essence, basing my argument on Kant's theory it is valid to say that the aspect of suicide is morally unjust. According to Kant, killing an individual is a wrong idea especially when life bodes ill (Steven, 23). However, in itself, this does not necessarily mean that the aspect of euthanasia is wrong because this act sometimes involves the whole intervention of the other person.

Primarily, Kant principle affirms that the aspect of euthanasia applies in the case where one has the mindset that the act is done out of a motivation of good intent instead of consequences (Steven, 23). In this light, Kant means that in case one is in a bad health status and suffering that the quality of life has significantly dropped to a point one cannot live anymore, then one may want to be killed. Despite Kant articulating that this might be the act of dishonoring humanity, he goes further to explain that if that person had lived an honorable life, then it should be fine if they die. Notably, according to Kant, such people have already served the ultimate purpose of living. Kantian principle teaches that the purpose of human being is to live a life that fulfills personal duty and complete them (Steven, 23). This virtue, therefore, saves an individual who is dying from the overall duty of living due to the kind of suffering they are going through.

Take an example of a doctor who has a patient suffering unbearably and the doctor decides to inject morphine to this patient to ease his or her pain away. In case one day the patient tells the doctor to kill him after describing how great his life has been up to that particular point. According to Kantian principle, the motive of the patient being killed is good and he should, therefore, be relieved from his suffering. At this instance, the doctor is advised to practice euthanasia considering the fact that the patient has had a fair share of honorable life. Because of the way the patient has lived his life and the kind of suffering he is going through; killing him will be in line with categorical imperative.

Conclusion

In this regards, it is not the highest duty in preserving one's life and people are called to give up their lives in the urge to secure that they had lived a rather honorable life. Despite the Kantian principle being categorical on the instance that one might be killed, it is not ethically moral to take some one's life just because of suffering. Apparently, this is because it is against the ultimate plans of God.

Works Cited

Daskal, Steven. "Support for Voluntary Euthanasia with No Logical Slippery Slope to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 28.1 (2018): 23-48.