The Taking of Human Life** *Excerpt from: Thiroux, Jacques P. and Keith W. Krasemann. (2007). *Ethics:Theory and Practice*. New Jersey: Prectice Hall, P.200-203.* *I. Applying the five basic moral principles to the taking ofhuman lifeA. It is questionable whether suicide, which is defined as "anintentional taking of one's life," is moral or immoral.1. There are several arguments against the morality of suicide.a) Some argue that suicide is always irrational; there is evidence,however, that although it is an irrational act in some cases, in others itis not.b) The religious argument states that only God can create or end life.1) This applies only to members of a specific religion that states thisas its belief.2) It is theologically questionable.3) It removes human responsibility with regard to protecting,preserving, or ending life.c) The domino argument states that if suicide is allowed, then otherforms of murder will follow.1) This argument is worthy of consideration.2) There is, however, no conclusive evidence to support it.d) The justice argument questions whether suicide is fair to survivorsof the victim.2. There are also arguments for the morality of suicide.a) A person has rights over his or her own body and life.b) A person should have the freedom to make decisions concerning his orher own body and life.c) It is entirely up to individual human beings to decide whether theirown lives are worth living.d) The main criticism of this argument is that no one has absoluterights over his or her own body or life.B. It is questionable whether killing someone in defense of the innocent(one's self included) is moral or immoral.1. There is one main argument against the morality of such an act:a) The taking of human life is always wrong.b) The main criticism of this argument is that it doesn't recognize thecomplexities of human existence or that some humans are capable of violatingall five basic principles.2. There are arguments for morality of killing in defense of theinnocent.a) People have the rights and obligations to protect innocent lives(their own included).b) The good of defending the innocent far outweighs the bad killing amurderer of innocent people.c) The main criticism of these arguments is that violence breedsviolence (the domino argument again).C. It is questionable if war is moral or immoral.1. There are arguments against the morality of war.a) It is a direct and massive violation of Value of Life principle,especially when nuclear weapons are used.b) It causes a great deal of useless killing, especially of innocentnoncombatants.c) The destruction caused by war far outweighs the gain.d) The solution is to deal with aggression and violence through peacemeans-to pacify one's enemy through nonviolence.2. There are arguments for the morality of war.a) War is the best controller of overpopulation.b) It is the "mother of invention".c) It is a great unifying factor and economic boon for individualnations.d) War sometimes is a "necessary evil" – the morally just war doesexist.1) Early Catholic doctrine describes the possibility of just wars.2) War is a more encompassing form of defense of the innocent.3. Given the devastation possible in a nuclear war, most arguments,including the just war argument, cannot support a nuclear holocaust: Such awar is indefensible.4. There is an old and very destructive method of making war, and thatis terrorism.a) Terrorism is defined as war deliberately waged against civilians.b) One of the most difficult aspects of terrorism is the injury anddeath of hundreds of innocent people and the destruction of property.c) Argument in support of terrorism: When people are oppressed or angryabout their lot in life, and nonviolent means haven't worked for them, thenthey feel they must resort to violence. Innocents may be killed, but theterrorists' cause is more important.d) Argument against terrorism: Excessive violence, especially when itinvolves the loss or mutilation of the lives of innocent people, cannot becondoned. Terrorism does not fall under any definition of a "morally justwar."e) The semantics of terrorism in public discourse reveals two doublestandards: an "*us* verses *them*" mentality and a framework that condemnsthe actions of nonstate actors and, at the same time, condones similar actscommitted by agents of the state-especially one's own state.D. It is questionable whether capital punishment ( *Death Penalty: added*)is moral or immoral.1. Capital punishment is defined as punishment, usually by death, thatis imposed in response to certain "capital crimes" such as murder,kidnapping, rape, and torture.2. Theories of punishment are as follows:a) Retributive or deserts theory: Punishment should be given only whenit is deserved and to the extent it is deserved.b) Utilitarian or results theory: Punishment is justified only if itwill bring about good consequences for everyone.c) Restitution or compensation theory: Justice is served only if thevictim of a crime or offense is provided with restitution or compensationfor the harm done to him or her.d) Capital punishment could conceivably be acceptable in all of thepreceding theories in some cases but not in others.3. There are arguments against the morality of capital punishment.a) It is a direct violation of the Value of Life principle – a "murder"planned and executively by society.b) It doesn't bring back the killer's dead victims or in any way, otherthan by expressing vengeance, recompense the survivors of the victims.c) There is no conclusive proof that it really acts as a deterrent,especially since most executions are performed in relative privacy.d) It is possible to wrongly execute an innocent person; and rich peoplewho can afford good lawyers are less frequently subject to capitalpunishment than are the poor and members of minority races.e) Capital punishment eliminates any possibility of rehabilitation andadds the cost of the killer's life to that of his or her victim.4. There are arguments for the morality of capital punishment.a) It is clearly a deterrent for the killer, who is put to death, butit also deters others who are contemplating murder.b) It is less costly than imprisonment (critics question this), andthere is no reason to make innocent, hardworking taxpayers pay for theupkeep of a guilty killer.c) It puts real teeth into laws, giving them force and sanction andstrongly encouraging everyone to obey them.d) A person who has killed has forfeited his or her right to be treatedethically; therefore, taking such a person's life is not immoral.e) Rehabilitation often is infeasible if nor impossible, especiallywhen one is dealing with serial and mutilating killers.f) It is only fair that killers should pay with their own lives forhaving taken the lives of others.*Your Turn: (For Review)** *1) What are your general views on suicide, and why?2) What are your general views on taking a human life in defense ofinnocent (self included)? Give reasons to support for your answers.3) Do you consider war to be moral or immoral? Why? If you think it isalways immoral, state your reasons; if you think it may be moral sometimesor under certain conditions, describe the conditions and provide reasonsthat could morally justify war.4) Is a nuclear war ever justifiable?5) Do you think that capital punishment is morally justified? Why orwhy not? If you believe it is sometimes justified, when and when not?6) What possible alternatives to capital punishment would you put forthas a ways of dealing with convicted killers?7) What is terrorism and how does it differ from other kinds of war?8) Do you think the Iraq is a just war? Why or why not?*Addendum:**Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes,there is the least of real liberty.**Henry M. Robert (Author of Robert's Rule of Order)*
Allowing Someone to Die, Mercy Death, and Mercy Killing** *Excerpt from: Thiroux, Jacques P. and Keith W. Krasemann. (2007). *Ethics:Theory and Practice*. New Jersey: Prectice Hall, P.251-255.I. Definition of termsA. *Euthanasia* is a confusing and ambiguous term because it is subjectto emotionalism. The word originally meant" a good health." More recently ithas come to mean mercy killing.B. Because this term is so confusing, it has been replaced in this bookby three phrases: "allowing someone to die," "mercy death," and "mercykilling."C. Allowing someone to die involves both not starting curative treatmentwhen no cure is possible and stopping treatment when it is no longer able tocure a dying patient. It means allowing a dying patient to die a naturaldeath without any interference from medical science and technology.D. Mercy death is the taking of a direct action in order to terminate apatient's life because the patient has voluntarily requested it –essentially an assisted suicide.E. Mercy killing is the taking of a direct action to terminate apatient's life without his or her permission.F. It should be noted that neither mercy death nor mercy killing islegal in the United States or in most countries throughout the world.G. Brain damage occurs when a patient has a normal heartbeat and normalrespiration but has suffered irreversible and total brain damage.1. The criteria for"brain death" are unreceptivity andunresponsiveness, no spontaneous movements or breathing, no reflexes, and aflat EEG.2. When patients are declared "brain dead," removing life-supportequipment or stopping treatment obviously cannot be the cause of theirdeath, so this does not constitute allowing someone to die, mercy death, ormercy killing.H. Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) results from damage to the cerebralcortex, or neocortex, which controls the cognitive functions. A PVS patientis not brain dead but lacks, and will permanent lack, even those minimalfunctions that make a life human.II. Allowing someone to dieA. This problem has become more crucial in the twentieth and twenty-firstcenturies because of the availability of advanced lifesaving andlife-supporting technology and procedures.B. There are a number of arguments against allowing someone to die.1. Some say it is tantamount of abandoning a dying person, though thisneed not be the case if we distinguish carefully between the "curing andhealing" and "comforting and caring for" aspects of medicines.2. Cures may be found or miracle cures may occur.3. We can never choose over life-we can never opt for death. Medicinemust save lives, not end them. There is a difference, however, betweenaccepting death as inevitable and choosing it.4. Some argue that allowing someone to die interfere with God's divineplan. One also can ask, however, which constitutes interfere with God'splan: Allowing someone to die when his or her time has come or prolongingthe person's death? The argument can be used to support either side.C. There are a number of arguments for allowing someone to die.1. Individuals have rights over their own bodies, lives, and deaths.One also can argue, however, that their freedom is not unlimited.2. Patients have the right to refuse treatment, and we should notoverrule this right-treatment often will not cure a particular patient, andsometimes it is worse than the disease.3. Allowing someone to die will shorten suffering; however, it alsowill shorten the person's life.4. Patients have the right to die with dignity. The phrase "dying withdignity," however, can cover up abandonment, mercy death, and mercy killing.D. Extraordinary means to keep people alive are those that involve agrave burden for oneself or another, and they vary according tocircumstances involving persons, places, times, and cultures. Such measuresas radical surgery, radiation therapy, respirators, and heart machinesprobably fall into this category when they are used merely to prolong dying.E. Ordinary means also are difficult to define, but for terminally illpatients they would include controlling pain and other symptoms as opposedto performing radical surgery or using respirators or heart machines.F. *Appropriate or inappropriate* cares are perhaps more suitable termsthan ordinary and extraordinary due to the confusion surrounding the latterterms. Thus, people could decide what would be appropriate care dependingupon the particular situation of a patient.G. *Advanced directives.*1. Three cases, the Quinlan, Cruzan, and Schiavo cases, wereinstrumental in raising the consciousness of many people concerning the needfor advance directives.III. Mercy death (voluntary dying or assisted suicide)A. The arguments against mercy death are much like those used againstsuicide except that in the case of mercy death the issue is furthercomplicated by the fact that someone else has to do the killing.1. The argument of irrationality has less force here than the case ofsuicide because of the one can legitimately ask whether patients in extremepain and suffering can ever be rational in choosing death.2. The religious argument remains the same except that the situation isfurther complicated by the fact that someone else has to do the killing; themercy motive, it is argued, does not justify murder.3. The domino argument has additional force in that if mercy death isallowed, mercy killing may soon follow.4. The justice argument in this case involves the guilt and othernegative feelings of the person who has to do the killing, and it alsoinvolves the burden of guilt placed on family members because they couldn'tdo anything to prevent their loved one from wanting to die.5. That a cure may be found is another argument presented here.6. One can argue that the hospice alternative has eliminated the needfor mercy death; however, some patients may not want any treatment, hospicetreatment included, and therefore it can be argued that they should beallowed to choose death.B. The arguments for mercy death are much like those for suicide.1. The patients should have the freedom to decide about their owndeaths, and the person who performs the act merely carries out the patients'wishes.2. We do the same for dumb animals, and we owe our fellow humans atleast as much consideration and mercy.IV. Mercy KillingA. Mercy killing is the termination of someone's life without thatperson's explicit consent by a direct means out of a motive of mercy.B. There are several arguments against mercy killing.1. It is a direct violation of the Value of Life principle-murder ismurder, regardless of motive.2. Because the consent of patients cannot be obtained, mercy killinginvolves an outside decision about the worth of their lives and sets adangerous precedent for eliminating others who may be considered "useless"to society. Who should be entrusted with decisions concerning the worth ofpeople's lives?3. Cures may be found, or patients may come out of deep comas; if wekill them, we eliminate these possibilities.C. There are several arguments for mercy killing.1. We are not violating the Value of Life principle because most ofthose who undergo mercy killing are not fully alive human beings; rather,they are mindless organisms.2. The longer people continue to "merely exist," the greater thefinancial and emotional burdens on the family and on society.3. If patients in such situations could make their wishes known, theywould say that they wanted to die. The only trouble with this argument isthat we cannot know this for sure because the patients cannot communicatewith us.4. Legal safeguards can be clearly established so as to prevent abusesof legalized mercy killing.*Your Turn: For Review** *1. How do mercy death and mercy killing, in general, differ from othertypes of killing? Do you agree that there is a real difference here? Why orwhy not?2. Why have dramatic advances in medicine forced us to take anincreasingly harder look at allowing someone to die, mercy death, and mercykilling?3. To What extent do you think the following are moral or immoral:allowing someone to die, mercy death, and mercy killing? Be specific, andsupport your answer with evidence whenever possible.4. Assuming that such acts were legal, could you yourself ever allowsomeone to die or perform the acts of mercy death or mercy killing? If not,why not? If so, under what circumstances? Describe the circumstances fully,and explain the reasoning behind your answers.5. If mercy death and/or mercy killing *were* legalized, shoulddoctors terminate patients' lives? Why or why not? If not, who shouldterminate them? Why? Could you do this for members of your family orfriends? Why or why not?-- ************ ********* ********* **An unexamined FAITH is not worth having
No comments:
Post a Comment