Final Hw!

The ethicist that I found to be least appealing was John Stuart Mill on Utilitarianism. His views were not as easy to comprehend at first compared to others we spoke of. I also feel that there were many arguments against his theories that made him less credible. He believed that all actions should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, however there were situations where it would be impossible to do this. I mentioned in previous blogs a story about a woman donating her kidney to a man that later murders ten people one day. I mean it is ridiculous to think that she was immoral for donating that kidney to a man that becomes a killer. However, in utilitarianism, she would be held accountable for that action because it brought the least amount of happiness to the least amount of people. Mill was definitely one of the ethicist that I thought was a bit over the top.

Murder

Aristotle believes that virtue is essential to living a moral life.  Under such beliefs, any extreme would be considered immoral, and therefore murder, which is certainly an extreme, would be viewed as an immoral action.  Under these circumstances any act of murder will undoubtedly be considered immoral.  However, Aristotle tends to have a greater focus on the individuals rather than the actions.  Therefore, if you consider an individual such as a soldier or a police officer, the issue of morality is much harder to understand.  These individuals would be viewed as virtuous for murdering someone as a means of protection.  If Aristotle’s view of morality depends on the individual more than the action, I believe that certain acts of murder could be viewed as moral when committed by particular individuals.    

Extra Credit

            The essay I chose was James Rachels “Active and Passive Euthanasia”. Euthanasia is the act of killing or permitting death of sick or injured individuals in a painless way for reasons of mercy. Withdrawing medical treatment with intentions of causing the patients death is considered passive euthanasia. Taking specific steps in order to cause death to the patient is considered active euthanasia.

            The moral problem that is being addressed in this essay is that active and passive euthanasia have no moral difference. Killing someone and letting someone die is still considered morally wrong. Rachels thesis is that killing is not in itself any worse than letting a person die; active euthanasia is not any worse than passive euthanasia (782).

            There are several arguments for and against this thesis. An Argument against Rachels thesis is the difference between active and passive euthanasia. For example, let’s say there is a patient who is dying of incurable cancer. In passive euthanasia, a doctor chooses not to do anything; therefore the patient’s cancer will kill the patient, not the doctor. In passive euthanasia, the doctor takes action in killing the patient, by lethal injection. Therefore the doctor becomes the cause of death.

            Rachels defends his thesis by stating that the doctor in the previous example is in fact not, not doing anything. In fact the doctor is letting someone die. This is a type of action, because if the doctor does not “do anything” than there is no other option but death. This moral action weighs the same as if someone was to physically kill the patient.        Rachels argument that active and passive euthanasia is morally wrong is persuasive because of the example he uses in his essay of Smith and Jones. He begins by explaining the two cases that involve Smith killing a person and another case where Jones is watching a person die. In the Smith case, Smith is set to inherit a large amount of money if his six year old cousin dies. With that said, Smith deliberately kills his cousin by drowning him. In the second case, Jones is set to inherit large amounts of money if his six year old cousin dies. Jones then plans to kill his cousin however when he opens the bathroom door, he sees his cousin drowning all on his own. Instead of helping he just sits back and observes his death. If this was a criminal case, both parties would be guilty. Therefore what would be the difference in killing a person, and watching a person die when you are capable of helping them?

            Rachels argument that active and passive euthanasia is morally wrong is not persuasive because of the example that was previously mentioned above. When looking at the situation closely in both cases, the main focus is the involvement of personal gain. Situations of euthanasia do not involve personal gain, or the destroying a healthy child. Situations of euthanasia involve a patient’s life that is or will become a burden. Therefore the example does not reflect a situation of euthanasia.