Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of Meta ethics which holds the belief that ethical statements are the same as non ethical ones, so can be verified or falsified in the same way. For example those looking to find out if euthanasia is right or wrong could look at evidence in order to verify or falsify the statement. If this evidence led to the conclusion that euthanasia ends the suffering of an individual then they could argue that euthanasia is right. This can be used as an argument for the meaningfulness of ethical language as being able to prove what is right or wrong can teach us how to act in an ethical way. G.E Moore argued against Ethical Naturalism as he believed that defining concepts such as ‘good’ are impossible and any attempt to define ‘good’ is to commit The Naturalistic Fallacy.
Their intention is all that matters. Kant focuses on what should be done, rather than doing things for their outcome. This means that even if something terrible happens as the result of a morally good action, it is still morally right. Kant had an absolute view that the right moral action must always be done. Kant tried to make moral ethics scientific through universalisation.
What is moral is what you have to do, its your duty. On the other hand, Teleology is concerned with using the means to reach an end, Euthanasia can be used an example of this as you are killing someone in order for them to feel relieved from pain.From a teleological thinkers point of view you would consider this right as they would see that the consequences outweigh the means. Although Natural Moral law shows that this is clearly wrong as the natural order of the world- when you born and when you die is being tampered with and Natural moral law thinkers believe that only the supernatural power such as God has the right to take a
Kant devised two different types of imperatives which allow us to make our decisions, hypothetical imperatives are the rules that we follow to attain a personal outcome or a selfish wish whereas categorical imperatives are intrinsically right. His first categorical imperative was meant to establish that humans should only act according to a law that can be universalised. ‘’Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law’’ – (Kant the moral order). The second of the imperatives is that we as humans should never use another human as a means to an end, treat them all with value. ‘’Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end’’.
Therefore, I agree with euthanasia protestors. Instead of ending someone’s life in order to prevent any more suffering, we should alleviate pain by improving our hospice care and making our healthcare system more affordable. Let us not lose our humanity by valuing life from the best ethical rules possible. In conclusion, the severity and the complexity of the euthanasia debate indicate why euthanasia is the most active area of research in contemporary bioethics. While some people strongly believe that euthanasia should be legalized, other people insist that euthanasia is literally a type of murder.
Reading Portfolio: Personal Response “Assisted suicide: A right or a wrong?” Even as I read about this controversial issue about euthanasia, it saddens me that people would want to argue whether it should be legal to choose to end their lives. But of course, they have their reasons too. Supporters of the legalization of euthanasia reason mainly on the basis that every person should have the freedom of choice to do whatever he wants with his body life, which includes controlling his own death and being given the right to maximum happiness that he can get. I think the arguments for euthanasia have a point; imagine and put yourself in the shoes of a terminally and critically ill person that suffers excruciating pain 24 hours a day, 7 days
Examine the role of conscience in Libertarianism (30 marks) Conscience can be defined as our belief on what is right and what is wrong. Butler stated that there is a principle working inside of us, it helps us “disprove or approve of actions... this principle in man is conscience”. This suggests that conscience is a final moral decision maker. In Libertarianism it is explained that we have complete freedom to act morally therefore we are morally responsible for our action. It is argued that conscience is the only true influence inside of us over our actions and that we should act with integrity and in a way that fits our principles and beliefs.
It is an irrefutable fact that we should help each. However sometimes help to others poses some danger to either us or others. Thus Peter Singer’s argument that, “we ought to prevent evil whenever we can do so without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance” in my view is a better school of thought or a sound moral law. We shall find out how he arrives at this conclusion and how convincing he is. Singer begins his argument by outlining some very important facts about human beings.
The Morality of Killing There is a clear distinction between killing, and murdering. To kill is defined as “to deprive of life ” while murder is defined as “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought ”. To kill something or someone is not necessarily to murder them. Even in religion, which often serves as a source of moral authority, this definition is very clear. In the Old Testament, God asserts that humans should follow the law “thou shall not kill” .
According to Idziak, the principle of double effect, “the act itself must be morally good or neutral, only the good consequences of the act must be intended, the good effect must not be produced by means of the evil effect, and there must be some weighty evil for permitting the evil” (p.16). Abortion due to the fetus having an abnormality falls under this category. Giving the fetuses life guarantees death and suffering in so many areas. According to Idziak, “Aborting an abnormal fetus prevents suffering for the child…giving life to the fetus would cause more harm to it than denying it life through abortion. Because of the poor quality of life, the child would have if born, abortion can be seen as being in the best interest of the child” (p.