Euthanasia - Arguments Flashcards
Give the argument for the sanctity of life.
Who: NL
What: We are made imago dei, therefore life inherently has value. This is important for euthanasia discussions.
Why:
1) Life has inherent value.
This is plausible since God created us imago dei. This is also demonstrated in 1 Corinthians 6:19.
2) If 1) then the sanctity of life is a valid consideration in euthanasia discussions.
This is plausible since euthanasia is concerned with the termination of life - and the plausible notion our lives have inherent value would neccessitate nuance in euthanasia discussions.
3) Thus, the sanctity of life is a valid consideration in euthanasia discussions.
Give the argument for quality of life.
Who: SE
What: If continued living has a comprimised quality of life, then euthanasia may be a valid option.
Why:
1) Life requires a certain quality for it to be worth living.
This is plausible through an extreme thought experiment. If you spent everyday being tortured for hours on end without any hope of being rescued, it would be absurd to suggest your life would be worth living. Therefore, it is clear life must have a certain quality for it to be worth living.
2) If 1) then quality of life is important for euthanasia discussions.
This is plausible as euthanasia might be a valid option in cases where there is chronic, incurable suffering.
3) Thus, quality of life is important for euthanasia discussions.
Give the argument that situation ethics is too permissive on euthanasia.
Who: Critic of situation ethics, seeing it as too permissive.
What: Agape is a central principle because it is too abstract, thus enabling inevitable exploitation of the autonomy it provides because of our divided will
Why:
1) Situation ethics asks us to make up our own minds in the situation about
whether something is right or wrong.
This is plausible because we are only guided by the principle of agape to make our decisions in situation ethics; to will good for your neighbour and be selflessly loving towards them.
2) If 1), then it will lead to frequent cases of exploitation of autonomy.
This is plausible because of our divided will in our postlapsarian state. Actions such as extramarital sex without the person’s wife knowing can be justified with agape as doing the most loving thing for your mistress and yourself - and this is obviously morally wrong according to our intuition however because of our divided will we will continue to justify these actions.
3) Thus, Situation ethics will lead to frequent cases of exploitation of autonomy.
Give the argument that the 5 primary precepts are practical.
Who:
Aquinas
What:
The 5 primary precepts are practical since they get the correct answer in moral thought experiements where there is a clear intuitive answer.
Why:
1) Natural law/The 5 primary precepts would argue that generally speaking, murder is wrong.
This is plausible since murder would violate the primary precept ‘Preserve life!’ - and so would be considered morally wrong by the Natural law theory.
2) If 1) then natural law/the 5 primary precepts is a good ethical theory/are good ethical precepts.
This is plausible since the judgement of a good ethical theory in a thought experiement should align with our moral intuitions in that situation. It is intuitive to us that murder should be, generally speaking, morally wrong and thus it would be absurd to accept an ethical theory that challenges that view.
3) Thus, natural law/the 5 primary precepts is a good ethical theory/are good ethical precepts.
Give the argument for the personhood criterion
Who: Peter Singer
What: Only humans which pass the personhood criterion are people.
Why:
1) Humans which aren’t rational and self-conscious aren’t people.
This is plausible since these humans have no true autonomy over their lives. If they must spend the rest of it entirely dependent on external support and they cannot even choose that for themselves - we cannot consider them truly persons.
2) If 1) then the personhood criterion is an important consideration in euthanasia discussions.
This is plausible because, although they make up only a fraction of euthanasia cases, non-voluntary euthanasia is a strong talking point in euthanasia and the personhood criterion offers a resolution to the problem of if it is morally right.
3) Thus, the personhood criterion is an important consideration in euthanasia discussions.
Give the argument that there is a slippery slope with the personhood criterion.
Who:
Archbishop Anthony Fischer, who uses this argument in the context of euthanasia.
What:
The personhood criterion could allow for a moral slippery slope, as morally bad acts such as murder can be considered neutral based on whether someone can be considered a ‘person’.
Why:
1) The personhood criterion can for decievement
This is plausible as non-voluntary euthansasia has the potential to be used to justify murder by lying about potential medical options.
2) If 1) then the personhood criterion is a bad ethical consideration.
This is plausible as the notion that murder is right is intuitively wrong, so any ethical criterion that allows us to potentially argue otherwise can be immediately considered a bad ethical consideration.
3) Thus, the personhood criterion is a bad ethical doctrine.
Give the argument that both active and passive euthanasia lead to the same agapeic outcome.
Who: Fletcher
What: There is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia since the only thing that matters is the loving outcome since love is God’s greatest commandment.
Why:
1) Love is the only thing that is intrinsically good.
This is plausible as love is God’s greatest commandment, as stated directly in the Bible in Matthew 22:36-40.
2) If 1) then there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.
This is plausible since, as shown in the first premise, an action is only considered insofar as it is the most loving action.
3) Thus, there is no moral difference between active and passive euthanasia.
Give the argument for Nozick’s absolute autonomy.
Who:
Robert Nozick, a libertarian.
What:
Nozick argued that an individual should have unrestricted autonomy in a situation, insofar as they do not impede on someone elses autonomy, because of our inherent human rights.
Why:
1) We have inherent human rights.
This is plausible since human rights are based on an individuals dignity and existence - since we all exist and have dignity we recieve inalienable human rights.
2) If 1) then we have an absolute autonomy.
This is plausible since we have the inalienable right to self-ownership and since we have self-ownership we can choose to do whatever we want with ourselves as long as it doesn’t impede on someone else’s self-ownership.
3) Thus, we have absolute autonomy.
Give the nuanced argument for the distinction between active and passive euthanasia.
Who:
???
What:
The distinction between active and passive is too blurry for appropriate discussion of moral differences.
Why:
In a nutshell, to have any meaningful discussion on the moral difference between active and passive euthanasia we must cleary define at which point euthanasia is passive. Surely not resupplying nutritional support is an active choice one makes, so would that make it active euthanasia rather than passive?
Give the argument for agape.
Who: Fletcher was a liberal Christian trying to make religion compatible with non-religious thought
What: Agape is effective for moral decision making because it is an objective guiding principle.
Why:
Premise 1: Agape is an objective guiding principle.
This is plausible because agape eliminates the need for context-specific rules by directing moral agents to act with love in all situations - which is easily understood and applicable despite cultural, situational or personal differences.
Premise 2: If agape is an objective guiding principle then agape is effective for moral decision making.
This is plausible because a universal central principle ensures consistency across moral decisions and the simplicity of agape avoids the complexity of navigating conflicting or conditional rules.
Conclusion: Agape is effective for moral decision making.
Give the argument that legalism is dangerous.
Who: General response, perhaps from antinomianism.
What: Although agape is abstract, the alternative of strict legalism is worse.
Why: In a nutshell, agape may be abstract to follow and there may be cases of people exploiting the autonomy it provides - however - an ethical framework of strict legalism runs the risks of conflicting situations. For example, in the case of sacrificial adultery where Mrs Bergmeier had to choose between extramarital sex and staying in a POW camp for the rest of her life - a legalist approach would have her stay in the camp and never see her family again which according to our moral intuitions seems wrong.
Give the argument in support of the four working principles.
Who: Fletcher was a liberal Christian trying to make religion compatible with non-religious thought
What: The four working principles are effective for moral decision making because they enable application of agape.
Why:
Premise 1: The four working principles enable application of agape.
This is plausible because the principles of pragmatism, positivism, relativism and personalism guide us to know what the most loving outcome should look like. For example the principle of pragmatism allows us to effectively apply agape by considering if our actions would be suitable and actable in everyday life.
Premise 2: If the four working principles enable application of agape, then they are effective for moral decision making.
This is plausible because it prevents situation ethics from being purely subjective, as if one truly stops and contemplates the four working principles they enable everyone practicing the ethic to reach the same conclusion on what the most loving outcome is - allowing for consistent moral decision making.
Conclusion: The four working principles are effective for moral decision making.
Example: This view can be exemplified with the notion of donating to charity. When considering the notion ‘everyone should donate to charity every day’, someone contemplating the four working principles could understand that although it seems like the most loving action - it is not pragmatic as not everyone has the ability to donate money due to their own financial situation and thus tweak the notion to accommodate for that, for example: ‘everyone should donate to charity when they are able to’.
Give the argument that the 6FP support for 4WP
Who: Fletcher
What: it says in the title
Why: In a nutshell, Fletcher argued that the 6 fundamental principles paired with the 4 working principles and the principle of agape holistically form an ethic that cannot be skewed to relativism and ensure a consistent, selfless, loving outcome in every situation - unable to be exploited for one’s personal goals.
