Sample Essay On Utilitarianism And Kantian

The term euthanasia has Greek roots. It actually means good death, and is commonly used when someone assists other to take his life. Generally speaking there are three kinds of euthanasia. Active euthanasia implies putting someone who suffers from terminal conditions to death. Passive euthanasia does not involve an action but an inaction to prevent death of someone who suffers from terminal conditions. Euthanasia can be voluntary, and non-voluntary. Non-voluntary euthanasia implies that the patient is unconscious or incapable of making any judgment or decision about his own life and death. This paper will find out what utilitarian and deontological positions would say about euthanasia.
Utilitarianism says that what defines right or wrong is the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people by maximizing benefits or at least reducing suffering. If a person is willing to die because is suffering from a painful and incurable condition, an utilitarian will find that voluntary euthanasia is perfectly justifiable if the amount of suffering is greater than the amount of pleasure the person would get from a continued life. According to the reasoning given by preference utilitarianism the desire to live is sufficient reason against killing. If one can reverse this argument it can be said that the desire to die counts as a reason for killing in the case that someone requests that this be done. Utilitarians also consider that the autonomous decisions of individuals should be respected, even those that would imply the waiving of their own right to continue living since they are the best guardians of their own interests. All these arguments count for both active and passive euthanasia, since it would be wrong to try to prolong the suffering of an individual whose suffering outweighs the benefits of a continued life. In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, utilitarians would measure the amount of positive and negative outcomes as well. For example, a baby born with Down´s syndrome who also suffers from other tractable complications should be allowed to live given that it is known that people with Down´s syndrome can live enjoyable lives.
Deontological positions differ from utilitarians in that they do not take results of actions as a measure of value. They consider that value can only be measured by intentions, because they guide the choices of rational beings. Deontologists also say that there is a set of laws which must be universal, and helps everyone figure out if something is right or wrong. In cases of euthanasia it is important for a deontologist define what imperative category to follow. For example, in cases of active euthanasia deontologists might choose to follow their duty not to kill human beings because it is a universal imperative, even if it contravenes the duty to respect other´s choices. Facing a case of passive euthanasia they might appeal to their duties of charity which should prevent people from letting someone die. In both cases they would say that killing is always wrong, arguing that a duty to kill cannot be a universal categorical imperative. Same reasoning applies to non-voluntary euthanasia. In the case of a baby born with Down´s syndrome and other tractable conditions, the choice should be made based on the categorical imperative of respecting a human life and charity. According to them it is required that people help other´s lives to go well.