One of the most widely debated topics in contemporary society is euthanasia. Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a person's life to relieve pain and suffering, and it is controversial because it raises questions about the right to die, the sanctity of life, and the role of medical professionals in end-of-life care. In this essay, we will examine the positions of each side of the ethical debate and evaluate them using the moral theories of Ethical Egoism and Social Contract Ethics.
There are two main positions in the euthanasia debate: there are those who support euthanasia, that are known as "pro-euthanasia advocates," and those who oppose/dislike euthanasia, known as "anti-euthanasia advocates". Pro-euthanasia advocates argue that individuals have a right to die with dignity, and that euthanasia can relieve unbearable suffering. Anti-euthanasia advocates argue that euthanasia is morally wrong because it violates the
…show more content…
While individuals may feel a personal obligation to want to alleviate any suffering one may be feeling, they also have a national obligation to follow which includes the laws of their country. From a social contract perspective, individuals should prioritize their national obligation to follow the law over their personal obligation to alleviate suffering. This is another controversial topic/debate that can argued in its own right.
A social contract ethicist would more than likely take the positions that euthanasia is morally wrong because it conflicts with the social value of the sanctity of life and the legal obligation to follow the law. A social contract ethicist would argue that society should instead focus on improving end-of-life care and providing individuals with the support they need to alleviate suffering without resorting to