This topic is similar to the abortion debate in that I find myself in the middle of an argument that is clearly not as black and white as I assumed. We have four different types of euthanasia, each which its own arsenal of situational thought experiments and rationalizations, and subsequently each with its own ethical justifications. Like the abortion debate, I was mainly concerned with the autonomy of the individual, claiming that we should have the ultimate control over our own bodies…no matter what. While I still tend to be more pro-euthanasia than not, I find my reasoning do not rely solely on the autonomy of the individual. My biggest roadblock with writing about these ethical dilemmas is that while I may have a lot of thoughts or opinions, I do not know what underlying beliefs these opinions are tied to. Boss does a good job explaining how the “Philosophers on Euthanasia” felt about the topic, but I feel that is merely the starting point for evaluating dilemmas like this. I have yet to see how the relationship between ethics, dilemmas, beliefs, laws, and public policy all come together; and if I can be honest, sometimes I feel like taking the “what’s the point” approach to these issues as they seem to have no clear answers or resolutions. The best option I can come up with is one where I use ethics to help me decide which beliefs I really hold true. Whether my beliefs are the practiced or agreed upon beliefs is irrelevant, what matters here is that I have come to a comfortable conclusion based on reason.
For the purposes of this journal I would like to focus on physician-assisted suicide (PAS), one of the types of active euthanasia. PAS is when the physician assists the patient in bringing about his or her own death; according to Boss, a situation most Americans are “split over” in regards to the ethics. Like abortion, the end result will ultimately be a reflection of the beliefs of the individual. One argument against PAS is the sanctity of life argument that states “human life has intrinsic worth.” The proponents of this argument claim that legalizing euthanasia will weaken the respect for human life. On the surface this seems like a sound, philosophical, argument and it advocates a certain amount of humanity. But is this argument realistic? While I understand the concern that legalizing euthanasia may be a shock to some, I think it is a slippery slope to claim that respect for human life will be weakened as a result. We’ve talked about this in class in regards to other situations; if we choose not to make a decision (such as legalizing PAS) only because of the fear of a particular outcome, then we will find it very hard to make progress in not only moral dilemmas, but social, scientific and political arenas as well. Boss states many “western philosophers” hold the sanctity of life position, but how many western philosophers are the ones directly affected by the act of euthanasia? What I mean here is, because this is such a delicate subject, wouldn’t it be more pragmatic to allow people to follow their own beliefs rather than creating an imposition of ours? An easier way for me to defend this argument is to assume the position of a terminally ill patient who is seeking a “good death.” Let’s assume I have become ill with brain cancer and subsequently diagnosed and given a meager prognosis. If I requested information on PAS and denied by a doctor that claimed human life has intrinsic worth, I would probably reflexively question the intrinsic worth of my life and dying body. I can’t say for certain, because I don’t know. I don’t know what it’s like to be in an incredible amount of pain or suffering, but something tells me, based on everything I currently believe in, that I don’t think I would want to endure the long and painful death.
Part of me feels that the dying should be treated with a certain amount of respect and an understanding that life has come to its inevitable end. As of now I don’t agree that the end of a person’s life is the time to inject moral debate, personal beliefs, or social norms. Because of this, I think PAS should at least be considered as an option for those in need. With that said, and much like my position on abortion, I feel that this particular issue should be looked at from the moral perspective to discuss, but from the social perspective to solve.
Showing posts with label arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label arguments. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Abortion
After reading the section on abortion and allowing some time for thought, I realized that I’ve previously taken the ethically lazy route by having an opinion on this issue without knowing all the facts. I cannot think of a better personal example that illustrates how easy it can be at times to not fully understand the implications involved with a particular ethical position in a moral dilemma.
I think it’s safe to say that since the moment I was able to comprehend abortion in the sense of its definition, I have taken the stance of pro-choice. It’s not to say that I took that position with any particular amount of ease, but instead that I took that position based on my rationalization of the information I was familiar with. The question I would (in the past) ask myself is “do we really have the right to tell another person what they can or can’t do with their bodies (based on our own objectives, personal morality, or religious beliefs?)” It always made sense to me that the one thing we should have complete control over is our own bodies. My concern was definitely focused on the consequences of making abortion illegal. For example, if by taking a woman’s right to an abortion away, what other precedents do we set? By allowing ourselves to live a life that is guided by the rules and doctrine of others, are we really allowing ourselves the autonomy we claim to have right to? Are we really “free”? Someone might want to argue that we do live like that based on social contracts and rules and regulations. I agree with that however, where do we draw the line? At what point does the contract or accepted behaviors of a group become infringement on personal rights? I realize now that not only was I making a “slippery slope” argument, I wasn’t even basing my decision on facts related to the ethical issues of abortion. I like looking back on this now because it helps gain more perspective on Utilitarian theory, a theory I had come to like because it focuses on consequences. I realize now that not only was I making the hasty argument of: the act of abortion could lead to something, I was also completely basing my decisions only on the consequences and pretty much putting the blinders on the morality of the actual issue. After trying to formulate a position in this argument, I found that a utilitarian approach didn’t get at the crux of the issue, leaving me ethically thirsty. Because of this I have seen a working example of how Utilitarian theory can be a bit “light” for those trying to get at the core of ethical problem solving. I began to doubt myself after I read Boss’s definitions and explanation of abortion. How could I have previously chosen my pro-choice position without really understanding all the information related to this subject? At the very least I have been forced to look at the issue from a different perspective. First and foremost, this is not a simple issue of yes or no; like other debates we have plenty of situational criterion and circumstantial clauses to consider. People who are pro-life are saying that the act of abortion itself is morally wrong while the pro-choice advocates claim that it is wrong to not let a woman have control over her body. (Now obviously there is a lot more to both sides of this argument, I’m simplifying for the purposes of this journal).
If these are the two arguments we consider for the time being, it seems as if these two issues aren’t even in the same category; one side is based on morality (killing is wrong) while the other is based on legality (right to choose). This already seems convoluted to me in that we are arguing morals against laws or rights. The pro-choice argument seems to naturally exude ethical egoism by claiming that the ability to choose should be paramount to those involved. However, a true ethical egoist would want egoism to be universal which would mean they would want everyone else to take the position of egoist to pursue their own rational self-interests. This acceptance of pursuing self-interests does not seem to be the actual interests of those supporting the pro-choice argument (regarding the pro-life position.) One of the more difficult facets of the argument for me, is the consideration of a potential life. Whether the life is human, fetus, or viable, seems very irrelevant to me. I understand the importance of this portion of the pro-choice argument here however, to me it doesn’t really matter how or what we classify the fetus as. Does calling the fetus a baby, or an embryo or a human have anything to do with the actual morality of the act itself? Most references of the sanctity of life reference just that, life. It shouldn’t matter if it is a clump of cells, a fetus, a tree, or a whale; it seems to me that we are only arrogant when we assume that we can willingly end the life of any other organism. It simply doesn’t sound right that we currently have laws that protect a myriad of other “life forms” on the planet, but when it comes to human life forms, we are reduced down to what seems like semantic debates.
So how do we proceed with this argument? The only thing that makes sense to me is to accept the fact that on a moral level, this debate will always be a controversial one and we should try to actually solve the issue from a social perspective. I’m not suggesting that we throw in the towel or become subjectivists, rather I’m suggesting that we consider other viewpoints (social factors, psychological effects), in addition to morals, that will hopefully help us solidify our beliefs and hopefully provide the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people.
I think it’s safe to say that since the moment I was able to comprehend abortion in the sense of its definition, I have taken the stance of pro-choice. It’s not to say that I took that position with any particular amount of ease, but instead that I took that position based on my rationalization of the information I was familiar with. The question I would (in the past) ask myself is “do we really have the right to tell another person what they can or can’t do with their bodies (based on our own objectives, personal morality, or religious beliefs?)” It always made sense to me that the one thing we should have complete control over is our own bodies. My concern was definitely focused on the consequences of making abortion illegal. For example, if by taking a woman’s right to an abortion away, what other precedents do we set? By allowing ourselves to live a life that is guided by the rules and doctrine of others, are we really allowing ourselves the autonomy we claim to have right to? Are we really “free”? Someone might want to argue that we do live like that based on social contracts and rules and regulations. I agree with that however, where do we draw the line? At what point does the contract or accepted behaviors of a group become infringement on personal rights? I realize now that not only was I making a “slippery slope” argument, I wasn’t even basing my decision on facts related to the ethical issues of abortion. I like looking back on this now because it helps gain more perspective on Utilitarian theory, a theory I had come to like because it focuses on consequences. I realize now that not only was I making the hasty argument of: the act of abortion could lead to something, I was also completely basing my decisions only on the consequences and pretty much putting the blinders on the morality of the actual issue. After trying to formulate a position in this argument, I found that a utilitarian approach didn’t get at the crux of the issue, leaving me ethically thirsty. Because of this I have seen a working example of how Utilitarian theory can be a bit “light” for those trying to get at the core of ethical problem solving. I began to doubt myself after I read Boss’s definitions and explanation of abortion. How could I have previously chosen my pro-choice position without really understanding all the information related to this subject? At the very least I have been forced to look at the issue from a different perspective. First and foremost, this is not a simple issue of yes or no; like other debates we have plenty of situational criterion and circumstantial clauses to consider. People who are pro-life are saying that the act of abortion itself is morally wrong while the pro-choice advocates claim that it is wrong to not let a woman have control over her body. (Now obviously there is a lot more to both sides of this argument, I’m simplifying for the purposes of this journal).
If these are the two arguments we consider for the time being, it seems as if these two issues aren’t even in the same category; one side is based on morality (killing is wrong) while the other is based on legality (right to choose). This already seems convoluted to me in that we are arguing morals against laws or rights. The pro-choice argument seems to naturally exude ethical egoism by claiming that the ability to choose should be paramount to those involved. However, a true ethical egoist would want egoism to be universal which would mean they would want everyone else to take the position of egoist to pursue their own rational self-interests. This acceptance of pursuing self-interests does not seem to be the actual interests of those supporting the pro-choice argument (regarding the pro-life position.) One of the more difficult facets of the argument for me, is the consideration of a potential life. Whether the life is human, fetus, or viable, seems very irrelevant to me. I understand the importance of this portion of the pro-choice argument here however, to me it doesn’t really matter how or what we classify the fetus as. Does calling the fetus a baby, or an embryo or a human have anything to do with the actual morality of the act itself? Most references of the sanctity of life reference just that, life. It shouldn’t matter if it is a clump of cells, a fetus, a tree, or a whale; it seems to me that we are only arrogant when we assume that we can willingly end the life of any other organism. It simply doesn’t sound right that we currently have laws that protect a myriad of other “life forms” on the planet, but when it comes to human life forms, we are reduced down to what seems like semantic debates.
So how do we proceed with this argument? The only thing that makes sense to me is to accept the fact that on a moral level, this debate will always be a controversial one and we should try to actually solve the issue from a social perspective. I’m not suggesting that we throw in the towel or become subjectivists, rather I’m suggesting that we consider other viewpoints (social factors, psychological effects), in addition to morals, that will hopefully help us solidify our beliefs and hopefully provide the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)