Euthanasia - Essay Plans Flashcards
Non-voluntary euthanasia is permissible. [Plan]
Main 1: Natural law theory
Sanctity of life argument.
Objection 1: Situation ethics
Quality of life is a more valid concern; we reject the sanctity of life since it is too legalistic. This is shown in the life of Jesus.
Reply 1: Barclay
‘Ethics in a permissive society’
Situation ethics will lead to a self-deluding society.
Main 2: Natural law theory
Violates primary precept to ‘Preserve life!’, which is an issue since the primary precepts are intuitive.
Objection 2: Peter Singer
We are directed to preserve the life of people - an argument can be made that since the people who would recieve non-voluntary are unable to make a conscious choice, they fail Singer’s personhood criterion.
Reply 2: Anthony Fischer
An adoption of this criterion is a slippery slope into fascist thought. The Nazi’s also created a hierarchy of people.
Is there a moral difference between active and passive euthanasia? [Plan]
Main 1: Fletcher
Situation ethics is concerned with the loving consequence being brought about through loving action. In both cases people would be relieved of suffering, so there isn’t a moral difference.
Objection 1: Natural law theorists
The sanctity of life upholds that we are made in the image of God, and as such active euthanasia is strictly wrong as it violates the primary precept to preserve life - which doesn’t apply to passive euthanasia.
Reply 1: Situation ethics
Quality of life is a more valid concern; we reject the sanctity of life since it is too legalistic. Therefore no inherent difference.
Main 2: Peter Singer
There is no moral difference since Singer is considered with utility as the only intrinsic good.
Objection 2: Nozick
We have the autonomy to do anything so long as it does not impede on others autonomy. Therefore, there is an inherent moral difference since active euthanasia is impeding on someones autonomy whereas passive euthanasia is ones own complete choice.
Reply 2: Nuanced critique?
The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is too blurry for us to conclude on a moral difference.
People should have total autonomy over their own lives. [Plan]
Main 2: Natural law theory
Violates primary precept to ‘live in an orderly society!’, which is an issue since the primary precepts are intuitive.
Objection 2: Peter Singer
We are directed to preserve the life of people - an argument can be made that since the people who would recieve non-voluntary euthanasia are unable to make a conscious choice, they fail Singer’s personhood criterion.
Reply 2: Anthony Fischer
An adoption of this criterion is a slippery slope into fascist thought. The Nazi’s also created a hierarchy of people.
Main 2: Nozick
We have the autonomy to do anything so long as it does not impede on others autonomy.
Objection 2: Situation ethics
If the more loving action is euthanasia to free up hosptial resources for non-chronically ill patients, then autonomy should be taken away in favour of the most loving outcome. (Agape is the central moral principle).
Reply 2: Barclay
‘Ethics in a permissive society’
Situation ethics will lead to a self-deluding society.
Natural law is not of use when it comes to euthanasia. [Plan]
Main 1: Natural law theory
Sanctity of life argument.
Objection 1: Situation ethics
Quality of life is a more valid concern; we reject the sanctity of life since it is too legalistic. This is shown in the life of Jesus.
Reply 1: Barclay
‘Ethics in a permissive society’
Situation ethics will lead to a self-deluding society.
Main 2: Natural law theory
Violates primary precept to ‘Preserve life!’, which is an issue since the primary precepts are intuitive.
Objection 2: Peter Singer
We are directed to preserve the life of people - an argument can be made that since the people who would recieve non-voluntary are unable to make a conscious choice, they fail Singer’s personhood criterion.
Reply 2: Anthony Fischer
An adoption of this criterion is a slippery slope into fascist thought. The Nazi’s also created a hierarchy of people.
Situation ethics is the most useful ethical theory when it comes to euthanasia. [Plan]
Main 1: Fletcher
Helpful because it has an objective moral law - agape.
Objection 1: Barclay
Agape isn’t helpful because it is too abstract.
Reply 1: Anti-legalists??:
The alternative, strict legalism, has more detrimental consequences.
Main 2: Fletcher
Helpful because of the four working principles (personalism, pragmatism, relativism, positivism).
Objection 2: Natural law theory
Agape is vague and easily misinterpreted, whereas the primary precepts are inherently knowable.
Reply 2: Fletcher
The six fundamental principles keep our interpretations of love in a situation consistent with agape as the ruling christian norm.
Does sanctity of life have any meaning in the 21st century? [Plan]
Main 1: Natural law theory
Sanctity of life argument.
Objection 1: Situation ethics
Quality of life is a more valid concern; we reject the sanctity of life since it is too legalistic. This is shown in the life of Jesus.
Reply 1: Barclay
‘Ethics in a permissive society’
Situation ethics will lead to a self-deluding society.
Main 2: Natural law theory
Violates primary precept to ‘Preserve life!’, which is an issue since the primary precepts are intuitive. Applies universally.
Objection 2: Peter Singer
We are directed to preserve the life of people - an argument can be made that since the people who would recieve non-voluntary are unable to make a conscious choice, they fail Singer’s personhood criterion and thus sanctity of life does not apply universally.
Reply 2: Anthony Fischer
An adoption of this criterion is a slippery slope into fascist thought. The Nazi’s also created a hierarchy of people. Therefore, sanctity of life must apply universally.
