outnfree, I will follow this...very interesting discussion!
I hope you will show your paper when you are done and graded....(tell us you got an "A" no matter what )
Please help, please???? (batting eyelashes)
by outnfree 35 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
safe4kids
Sorry Outnfree,
I'd love to help but being an emotional female with loose morals, I'm incapable of thinking logically or offering any type of logical argument. Now if it's tears and whining you'd like, I'll be happy to help
Dana
-
Joyzabel
LOL @ Dana.
Outn, boy you don't start simply do you!
Ethical questions are great for discussions with drinking involved! Do we have to bring our own to join in this discussion?
hugs,
j2bf -
somebody
outnfree,
Forgive me, Gwen, but passive vs. active murder is ANOTHER topic, and I want the posters to help with MY topic!
this thread could easily turn into an argument over "Capitol punishment ought to be abolished" --- which was an entirely DIFFERENT "Possible Paper Topic" handed out by my professor.
Sorry about that. You're right.
So back to your question of....
"IS Euthanasia immoral?"
My answer would be NO, to both the active and passive euthanasia.
peace,
somebodylol@ safe4kids
"Air baths are good for preventing colds.. What you do is strip naked mornings and evenings and then bob up and down for a while."~ Golden Age Feb 10 1926 31
Group air bath,anyone?
-
Introspection
Well, just one thing about the use of the word murder. Murder is usually defined as unlawful killing, distinguished from other types of killing. Also, in the main thesis statement itself you don't want to state the reasons, just your position.
If you do go with this position, it seems obvious that one of the main questions you need to answer is what about when it is voluntary, and you're just carrying out the person's wishes? Although some of the reasons stated here might be good counter arguments, I'm sure you know that you want to address the typical "classic" ones that have been expressed in published works. I remember from when I took one of my classes a text used was a bunch of essays on different issues like this, if I see it I'll let you know what the basic positions are. I'm sure you can find a lot of stuff on the web too, so I think a big part of it is to identify how they are supporting their position so that you can address those.
The thing is you're going to be limited in how many arguments you can cover, and you want to cover those well so you want to pick them well and cover them thoroughly with good arguments, rather than go for quantity. For the purpose of the assignment, you may have to ignore some of the counter arguments if you can't get around it, or you might even find yourself changing your thesis because of the arguments against it.
By the way, have you covered fallacies and are there requirements as far as what you need to include in the paper?
-
Introspection
Found that text. It is "Current Issues and Enduring Questions" by Barnet and Bedau. You might want to look for it.
-
somebody
Passive euthanasia involves allowing a patient to die by removing her from artificial life support systems such as respirators and feeding tubes or simply discontinuing medical treatments necessary to sustain life. Active euthanasia, by contrast, involves positive steps to end the life of a patient, typically by lethal injection.
Doh! I'm back again!
I didn't see that passive euthanasia stated that the patient was against it, or wasn't, religiously. I was just imagining a patient being alive only by tubes but dead in every other sense and a family member had to make the choice as to whether to give permission to the doctor to take the patient off life support. I do not think the practice of euthanasia in itself to be immoral.
joy2bfree,
I think I'll have a drink. This topic is really making me think. My brain is running in a vicious circle now!
peace,
somebody"Air baths are good for preventing colds.. What you do is strip naked mornings and evenings and then bob up and down for a while."~ Golden Age Feb 10 1926 31
Group air bath,anyone?
-
seven006
Out,
This is an interesting topic and I will try to help you out with my perspective.
As in all topics based on an individuals moral guidelines the definitive answer of whether something is right or wrong is never determined as an absolute. The question of whether something is moral or immoral is just another way of asking if it is right or wrong based on an individuals personal level of values and ethics. Trying to find a "logical" answer in a topic like this when you introduce a persons moral values almost makes it impossible to decide. The answers you will receive are all based on interpretation derived from individual moral values and not specific logical reasoning.
By introducing the thought of "morality" to your subject makes it very different then if you simply asked if euthanasia is a "reasonable" answer in trying to end a persons suffering. Taking many factors and reasoning on them can give you an answer based on the persons prognosis and level of suffering. The moral factor changes the strength of both logic and reasoning and puts it more on an a personal interpretive level.
I may be wrong but if you were given this assignment and were asked to argue the subject matter as an exercise in logic I would say the purpose of the instructor is to show that logic and reasoning can be completely nullified when the topic of morality is introduced. Elements of logical thinking may come into play along with ones morals but when it's all said and done it is still based on an individuals own personal values and ethics.
The sprout issue of euthanasia involving a criminal is actually not euthanasia at all but decisively execution. Euthanasia is specific to someone who is sick or is suffering extensive pain. Even though a lethal injection is used in both cases the ending the life of a criminal who is healthy is different.
The way you have broken down the different instances of euthanasia, voluntary, involuntary, nonvoluntary, should be looked at on an individual case basis. Logic would dictate that that voluntary euthanasia should be seen as only doing as the sick or suffering person wished thus eliminating any thought of guilt or responsibility to the person carrying out the act. The moral issue shifts the weight from the one carrying out the act to the one asking for it.
Here are my thoughts about voluntary euthanasia based on logical thinking without the moral issue being involved:
Using the exact definition of euthanasia ((the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy )) the emphasis should be put on the word "hopelessly." As medical science continues to make progress in leaps and bounds the limitations of the word "hopelessly" continues to change. Fifty years ago a person may have been hopelessly suffering from a liver disease and the thought of helping them end their suffering was easier to make. Today liver transplants are an everyday procedure.
Other things to consider in "voluntary euthanasia" is the age and mental state of the person when they ask to be euthanized as well as the level of suffering.
If the person suffering is young and strong could the suffering be eliminated in a little time with the introduction of a new medical treatment that is about to be introduced? Is his level of "hopelessness" based on current medical knowledge or is based on the current emotional and mental state of the person suffering? Because of the pain and depression that comes as a result is the young person just giving up and asking to die?
In the case of an elderly person it may be quite different. Are they suffering from pain because of the natural aging of their body and there is not a reasonable chance that medical science can do anymore than prolong death for just a little while and ease a small bit of suffering?
You have two cases of "voluntary euthanasia," someone asking to die, which one is moral or immoral to carry out? Which one is reasonable or unreasonable to carry out?
Timing is a factor in both cases. The age of the elderly person and the chances of a prolonged normal existence is fairly unreasonable to see. For the younger person the chance of medical advancement to help them might be worth holding off. One must weigh and balance their level of suffering with the possibility of medical advancements. If they are terminal it makes a big difference. If they are simply in a situation of hopelessness, that could change in time.
I need to take off for a while but will add my comments about involuntary, nonvoluntary euthanasia when I get back if you want to hear them.
Take care and I hope this helps
Dave
-
Tanalyst
Euthanasia - replace the last "a" with a "n" is immoral.
However I'd probably do it to myself if I were old, in pain, & terminal.
I believe its legal in Holland, so I'd fly over there,call a medical school to come get a free body and take my shot. No funeral expenses,and I'm helping science.Now that's being logical.
-
raven101
Congratulations on your first college class outnfree! I just finished my fourth full time semester, I really love school. Some words of encouragement, it gets considerably easier once you get through the first couple semesters. Also, never underestimate the value of communication with your professors!
seven006 addressed my take on the assignment with the point about morality being an individual 'reality'.
Was this Q? assigned specifically to address morality?
If not I would change my wording to logic or reason as seven006 suggested, if so the subject of morality itself should take up a significant portion of your paper.
Morality is a personal as well as cultural and societal issue. The prevailing religion of a community or culture will dictate at LEAST the basic framework of a peoples concept of morality. This is evidenced by the very different practices witnessed worldwide.
Infanticide in India and China for example, is commonplace. People who are members of the Jehovahs Witness organization believe it to be a moral necessity to refuse some life saving medical procedures.
There still exist indigenous tribes that practice cannibalism.Personally I would argue that morality is the personal differentiation between right and wrong, therefore, issues like euthanasia should be left entirely to the discretion of the person in question.
I would show examples of the diametric opposition in different cultures (as well as individuals) concepts of morality, illustrate the importance individuals place on their perception of morality, and stress the injustice of imposing upon it.
Have fun!
Raven101