Agony is bad, and when life becomes agony, life becomes bad. Death, in return, turns into the better option. This is the case for people who have to live with a disease that can’t be treated or managed, or may even be incurable. These people do have an option to seek a way out of their agony, euthanasia. Euthanasia, however, creates many problems among moral agents, one of which is the question of justification for deliberately harming another person, or asking someone else to harm oneself. Justification can be seen in the argument; Agony is bad; when life is agony, death becomes more coveted; and by asking another person to consciously take away life when it is agony (euthanasia), one is asking for help in reducing agony; so therefore, euthanasia …show more content…
Legally and morally, it’s been considered a grey area and a problem. Euthanasia is painless, and those who ask for it usually have an incurable/painful disease. Because it is a grey area, it can be considered a moral problem, since its comparable to one person asking another to kill them. When dealing with moral problems, it’s best to use starting points to establish a sort of guide to morality, and Russ Shafer-Landau actually created a list of starting points to do this. Instead of trying to use every point on the list, I will focus on; “Agony is bad”, and “Deliberately hurting other people requires justification”, and how they compare to each other, in relation to the topic of …show more content…
The whole argument is based off the idea that a person’s life becomes agony, and that death becomes a more desirable option. It should also be noted that an incurable or hard to treat disease is the exact cause of euthanasia, as well sometimes being in an irreversible coma. So, one may consider euthanasia to be morally acceptable when a person has an incurable or untreatable disease than causes agony, because agony is bad, and is the proper justification for doing harm to someone, specifically to the case of