Assess the view that Situation Ethics is of no help with regard to the issue of Euthansia

?

Assess the view that Situation Ethics is of no help with regard to the issue of Euthansia

Advantages

  • UNDERMINES THE BIBLE : 10 commandments not the 10 suggestions. "Thou shall not murder" - clearly shows that euthanasia is not permitted. These were made to help with moral decision making. Should never be disregarded even if done in love. Geneis 1 "imageo dei" - life is sacred in value and holds supreme specialness. Individuals acting on their own isolates thousands of years worth of teachings. Pope Pius banned SE being discussed - argued that life is God given so only he can take away - "God gave and the Lord takes away." (JOB 1:21)  BUT - SE is still based on christian principles but just not as strict as the OLd Testament or the Catholic Church. Instead they follow Jesus' teachings of love, mercy and forgiveness. "Sabbath was made for rules, rules werent made for Sabbath."
  • RISK OF SLIPPERY SLOPE: SE's openess to euthanasia in certain situations has other risks other than undermining Gods authority. It mY come with unintended acts that arent loving - does the price of love outweigh the value of human life? People make take advantage of euthanasia if they dint seriously need it, eg - Nan Maitland travelled to Dignitas to avoiding 'dwindling old age' - she was still a fully functioning person. Absolute theories such as Natural law avoids these risks, through divine law and the precepts we know that euthanasia is strictly forbidden - its illegal for a reason. BUT - euthanasia is done out of someones best interests not for evil, selfish reasons. Helga Kuhse: not trying to remove anyones values (unlike Hitler) but trying to ease pain and suffering.

Disadvantages

  • MORE PERSONABLE: Relative - 1 of fletchers principles. SE isnt tied to any legalistic rules unlike natural law. Circumstantial - no 2 situations are the same, instead laws and absolutes become relative to love. 'Do not murder' - euthanasia isnt out of evil or hatred but is to ease pain and suffering. Which fits with flethchers 5th proposition: 'Love justifies the means'. - being lawful is irrelevant and can be broken when love demands it. Our quality of life is more important than our sanctity of life. Criteria should be followed to decide whether someone is still an alive and functioning person. For example Daniel James and his family may argue that he lost his personhood and QoL so he had the right to choose. "It relativises the absolute it doesnt absolute the relative." BUT - Laws are made for a reason - Barclay: SE is too optimistic, "too discard laws is to discard experience."
  • PRAGMATIC: Anothers one of Fletchers principles. Allows circumstances to adapt over time and the chnages that take place, eg - modern technology and medical advancements. Euthanasia may now be more loving because we live longer, meaning some people will have to suffer for longer due to medicine, eg - pacemakers. Helps to resolves 2 conflicting duties unlike NL, " Sometimes you have to push aside your principles and do the right thing." Ideas of NL and Aquinas are now outdated especially in growing secular societies. Ideas of quality of life from Singer and Mill need to be considered - something SE can do as long as the outcome is loving. BUT - not all consequences can be predicted, how far are we meant to predict for? What if theres a chain of consequences that arent loving.

Evaluation

SE is modern and pragmatic whilst still having underlying christian principles which appeal to people of faith. The theory takes into account modern advancements and understands that religious laws may need to be broken in order to achive the most loving and caring outcome. However its illegal for a reason, Pope John Paul II called it the "culture of death" which comes with too many risks and undermines Gods authority.

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Ethics resources:

See all Ethics resources »See all Euthanasia resources »