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.
He believes that it is “a will to nothingness, an aversion to life, a rebellion against the most fundamental presuppositions of life.” To explain this we must first define sacrifices in general, which is to give up something so as to feel better when suffering, reaching a moment of inspirational truth. In this idea Nietzsche challenges the true ideals of sacrifice by saying, sacrifice is only truly virtues when you give up something for nothing in return. If we look closely at the consequences of peoples sacrifice we see a trend of return interest, that is people receive a feeling of well-being. Nietzsche explains that sacrifice is only used for personal self-interest; in this point the word sacrifice has disbelief in its self. To escape from this continuing moral dilemma we have two choices: 1, we sacrifice, sacrifice all together or 2, we sacrifice for nothing.
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
Scenario 1: 1. Bryan should stick to his instincts and return the clock. No one enjoys upsetting the ones they love; but keeping the clock could portray the company in a negative light, and possibly cost Bryan his job. 2. The ISM code of standards says that all forms of manifestations and commercial bribery should be denounced.
Is there anything unsatisfactory about it? Could it have been improved upon in some way? Cost-benefit analysis is a legitimate tool, by using the lowest cost to obtain the biggest profit out of it. However, it is unacceptable to sacrifice human life in exchange of paying a lower production costs. Before they made any decision, they should hold an ethical meeting about the improvement of fuel tank, if they would change their mind by paying more then people would not have to die.
Galt communicates that the evil of the world is made possible only by the sanction of the victim, and that individuals must withdraw their sanction. People must understand that they are enslaved and they must be able to identify their enemies. Galt states that the individual has sole control over his or her own happiness, with no one else to blame problems on, “No one’s happiness but my own is in my power to achieve or destroy” (786). This philosophy completely rules out the popular looter slogans of, “I couldn’t help it!” (523), and “They made me do it!”
Slavery allows one man to imprison another man that is his equal, to a life he doesn’t choose. To eliminate another simply because they don’t image you or enslave a man should never be just in anyone’s eyes. I strongly stand against this type of act. If anyone disagrees than I should feel free to murder them, right? Wrong!
When these actions of racial profiling takes away from your state of being free, power to do as you please, and in some cases your freedom from physical restraint; are in violations of your liberty making it immoral. In retrospect, what makes racial profiling immoral is the state that it leaves the victim in which is commonly a vulnerable one. This vulnerable state can consist of the feeling of being untrustworthy, an outcast, or stripped of his/her liberty. Everything about this goes against the way we should be treating each other morally regardless of our individual religious or personal
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.
Oddly enough, with this theory, it is prohibited to tell lies or commit suicide because that is morally wrong within itself and does not support the universal good of a rational decision, but if people acted in line with their duty to the universal law of their society, the results were of no consequence (Butts & Rich, 2008, Chapter 1). Kant stated that a person should act without emotion and with a complete sense of duty to serve the morally universal law of society and that the intention is of more importance than the result – consequences of the actions do not matter (Jasper, 1962). The theory of deontology follows this thought by setting demands that humans act at all times as though their actions would be universally accepted into an overall rule for society. He believed that duty and law are always one unit and cannot be separated and that with this duty to law, we shape our world. My criticism of this theory is that thought processes without emotions make our decisions too concrete.