Life is intended to be lived fully and balanced, it is seen as irrational to end life due to illnesses. When a patient becomes terminally ill, incurable, and distressed, there is no value to linger on pain and suffering. The right to die movement does not promote assisted suicide and euthanasia to treatable matters. James H. Ondrey suggests the movements
The role of our conscience is also a reason a follower of a religious ethic would use to support their objection. Firstly, Natural Law is a deontological theory and does not look at the individual needs or situation; it considers the act of euthanasia or ‘the act of killing’ itself. The preservation and protection of life is a primary precept and should absolutely be followed. Euthanasia goes against this. A follower of Natural Law would object to euthanasia, chiefly for this reason.
Allowing a human life to intentionally be ended disregards the sacredness of human life and has no direct difference to murder despite the intentions to prevent pain. Furthermore, euthanasia would become the first step of a slippery slope whereby value of human life will be depreciated and reduced to economical and personal convenience. However, these farfetched consequences cannot surpass the empathetic argument of mercy on the patient whereby quality of life overrides quantity. The most convincing argument that renders the killing of terminally ill morally permissible is the understanding that all humans possess autonomy. John Stuart Mill argues in (On Liberty (1859), ‘The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which a citizen is amenable to society, is that which concerns others.
In the quote below Rand explains why she rejects religion outright, and she believes man himself deserves the attention: Just as religion has preempted the field of ethics, turning morality against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. “Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man… But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
English 3 Acc. Death penalty does not deter crimes. In the novel A Lesson Before Dying by Ernest J. Gaines they are very unfair with the decision of Jefferson having to die with a crime he didn’t commit. My thought on death penalty is that it doesn’t stop issues in society. People will always do what they want to do trying not to get caught.
He accentuates the need for the people to understand that no one is superior to another, and the differences among humans should be accepted and welcomed. He ends by expressing that he wanted an end to monuments, such as the Vietnam Memorial which he calls “a sober/ vast black wall of broken lives”.(2-3). He desperately wants this because the end to monuments means the end to war. If there were no war, there would not be the need to create monuments for veterans, stamps, holidays, or even the “Vietnam Veterans Memorial Highway”(7). If humans learned to accept
The Torah suggests the death of a murderer. Killing a murderer does not bring any answers that make us understand what the reasons of the murderer were. Nietzsche says that we should follow our own instincts. In this case, it would be difficult to use his suggestion because neither the murderer, nor I would know if what we are doing is right or not. Even when Nietzsche suggest more freedom to make decisions, it is easier to follow the morals already created.
This staple of his beliefs is why he doesn't fear death, but in fact looks forward to it. By escaping he is committing an unjust act against the state, and committing unjust acts ruins the soul. With a ruined soul there is no point in living life as the soul is the only important thing, not the body. Therefore the most important thing is not only living life, but living a just life. While Socrates arguments may be sound in his opinion, I'm not sure if I agree with them.
Utilitarianism Would you authorise someone to be tortured to save innocent lives? Deontologist would argue that you should never torture anyone because this is wrong in every situation. For deontologists the act is most important and not the consequences as the end never justifies the means. I agree with the telegocial approach which believes that whether the something is right or wrong depends on the consequences. I would agree that you can torture someone as the consequence is to save innocent lives which is good.
In the Phaedo, Socrates enlightens Cebes on death, and how death should not be looked at as the end of all means, and instead, should be welcomed by a philosopher. Socrates justifies his position, stating that through death, a philosopher will be able to pursue true wisdom in that the soul is “purged” from the body. Socrates expresses, only those who do not fear death truly posses knowledge and self control. Socrates and Cebes discuss the idea of suicide and Socrates explains to Cebes how suicide should not be an option, even though Socrates feels like death is a release. Socrates explains that the body is a possession of the Gods and the human is not the sole owner of his or her body.