Analysis Of Morality Of Euthanasia

1.

In Thomson’s essay, she utilizes different thought experiments to argue that a fetus' right to life does not supersede a mothers right to bodily autonomy as well as the ability to continue living healthily, thus concluding that abortion is not morally impermissible. Her first example emphasizes how abortion doesn't violate the right to life of a fetus, as the right to life is not inclusive of the right to use another persons body. The thought experiment that she proposes follows that by ‘unplugging’ oneself from a violinist who is dependent upon your body for life support functions, one is not violating the right to life but merely depriving the violinist of the use of your body— to which the musician has no right to in the first place.

Rachels prefaces her two arguments by explaining that the single most powerful argument in favor of euthanasia is mercy. The concept of mercy and how it relates to euthanasia is quite simple. Terminally ill patients may suffer from pain and agony so terribly inconceivable that it is beyond the comprehension of those who have never experienced it. Mercy dictates that euthanasia is justified in that it ends suffering that is essentially worse than death. The first argument in regards to cases of justified killing functions under the ideological principles of utilitarianism. The ideology follows that an action is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in the world and decrease the amount of misery. James goes on to explain that the policy of killing hopelessly miserable terminally ill patients would serve to decrease the amount of unhappiness in the world. Thus, under utilitarianism, euthanasia would be a justified form of killing, as it decreases the amount of suffering in the

To hold that the maximization of happiness is the most morally important thing is wholly wrong. This is due to the fact that happiness is only one of a variety of values that are important. Values such as autonomy, freedom, justice, and human dignity are all also important. The principle of utility follows that infringing upon any one of these other values in the promotion of happiness is morally right, which can not be true. People have a right to individuality, control over their own bodies, as well as certain basic liberties and freedoms—even if doing so does not maximize happiness. The principle of utilitarianism is thus unacceptable as it disregards the importance of other equally legitimate values. An example that illustrates the wrongness of the principle of utility and its application to euthanasia is as follows; If one leads a miserable life-laden with more unhappiness than happiness-Utilitarianism would dictate that the world would be better off if this person were killed. The application of utilitarianism in this example is particularly gruesome and morally wrong due to the fact that killing can not be morally justified if it does not take into account whether said person wishes to die. The application of this principle to social policy would create a reality that is quite grim—people with severe depression would be exterminated on a wide scale basis to