Can these kinds of treatment really get patient and their families out of suffering as well as give hope? I do not think so. For passive euthanasia, the patients just refuse to accept any treatment and let their lives continue naturally without any medical or machine. For instance, Julia Quinlan, Karen’s mother, explained the family’s feelings: “We didn’t ask for Karen to die. We just asked for her to be removed from technology and be placed in a natural state.” People who are against euthanasia believe that passive euthanasia is wrong.
They reject the idea of human sacrifices and animal sacrifices in Hinduism and how by doing that god would help release them from suffering. This can also reflect their believe in non violent and the equalness of human being. In their opinion, the
Even the one who actually performs the Release does not know the real truth: “One for here, one for Elsewhere,” Lily chanted. “Do you actually take it Elsewhere, Father?” Jonas asked. “No, I just have to make the selection… Then I perform a small Ceremony of Release.” “And somebody else comes to get him? Somebody from Elsewhere?” “That’s right, Jonas-bonus.” (p136-137) In this way, everyone in the Community is shielded away from the real truth. Because fear and pain does not play a role on this utopian society, let alone death, the term “Release” was created to veil the true meaning of death.
(1) what was the author’s thesis? Banning the burqa is without doubt a terrible assault on the ideal of religious liberty. It is the sign of a desperate society. No one wishes for things to have come so far that it is necessary. But they have, and it is.
Aquinas states that most natural bodies are not intelligent enough to work towards this goal by themselves and are directed instinctively by a designer, God. Mill, on the other hand criticises the design argument by saying that the crimes nature commits can not be forgotten and are a clear indicator that no benevolent designer/God can possibly exist because of them. He states that humans would not go unpunished for the same vicious crimes committed by nature, he says that if there is a designer, he/she is ruthless and therefore is not the classical God that so many people believe
He basically degrades the entire Bible by saying that there is no fact in the world and everything is an interpretation. He claims the truth is unnecessary to be spoken because it is only necessary to speak the truth when the untruth is so false that it can be detected. Nietzsche shares his belief that a human’s life is 100% controlled by the individual and all success should be credited to that individual. Then he disrespects all Christians by claiming they are a species of weak failures looking for pity that shall parish to the strong-willed all-powerful being. I strongly disagree with almost everything Fredrick Nietzsche writes about in this section of the reading.
He believed that life is meaningless and that we have no souls, so we should therefore grasp everything that the world has to offer whilst we can as there is no chance of an afterlife in his perspective. Neitzche also said that everyone should strive to seek pleasure and success wherever it could be found, he also thought religious beliefs to be false. But what did Neitzche mean by God is ‘dead’? He felt that religious outlook is no longer credible for the modern intellectual person. He meant that humans had advanced their understanding of the natural world enough to realize that the literal teachings of the religions that espoused God were not true.
He would have had no interest in it if the Indian National Congress had adopted Satyagraha and subscribed to nonviolence. He objected to violence not only because an unarmed people had little chance of success in an armed rebellion, but because he considered violence a clumsy weapon which created more problems than it solved, and left a trail of hatred and bitterness in which genuine reconciliation was almost impossible. This emphasis on nonviolence jarred alike on Gandhi’s British and Indian critics, though for different reasons. To the former, nonviolence was a camouflage; to the latter, it was sheer sentimentalism. To the British who tended to see the Indian struggle through the prism of European history, the professions of nonviolence rather than on the remarkably peaceful nature of Gandhi’s campaigns.
Singer argues that the people of East Bengal should not suffer and die because we are unwilling to help financially when we are able. It is morally wrong to let them starve, go sick and die when we could prevent such outcomes. It does not matter how far away we are from East Bengal, it is morally wrong to turn our heads and pretend that nothing has
However, that is morally wrong because taking away one’s life is in nature’s hand, not by any human force. So for one to criticize another cultural practice could help save lives. For example, Rachels mention how in the life of an Eskimo, infanticide is common. Also, old people become too feeble to contribute to the family and are left out in the snow to die. Evidently, just because different societies disagree on a certain matter that does not mean there is no objective truth in the situation.