Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Euthanasia - Coggle Diagram

- - - - We are created in God's image. Genesis says that is why it i s wrong to kill people
        
        The 10 commandments say thou shalt not murder
        
        1 Corinthians says that our body is a 'temple of the holy spirit' and 'you do not belong to yourself'
  - - - There are many themes found in the Bible, the sanctity of life is only one
        
        Other themes include compassion and love, both emphasised by Jesus
        
        All these factors must be taken into account and in some extreme cases the sanctity of life may be outweighed by the others
- - - - Singer argues that the reason killing is wrong is that it violates the preferences or instrests of a being
        
        If someone has a low quality of life and a preference to die, then voluntary euthanasia is justified
        
        Non-voluntary euthanasia is also justified for those in a vegetative state and for babies born with terrible medical conditions like spine abifida. They cannot have or express a preference, but they do have an interest in not suffering unnecessarily
        
        The reasons killing is normally wrong do not apply in cases like this where quality of life is low or non-existent
- - - - If someone want euthanasia then that is up to them, no matter the reason
        
        If someone else wants to help them, there is nothing ethically wrong with that
        
        Voluntary euthanasia is therefore always morally acceptable
  - - - Singer points to the example of a love-sick teenager who wants to die for short-sighted reasons
        
        Singer claims we can 'safely predict' they will get over their issues
        
        Allowing autonomy in euthanasia for absolutely any reason would lead to many people dying when they themselves would have ended up regretting it. That doesn't seem like it enables autonomy
    - - Mill argued that society will be the happiest it can if we follow the harm principle
        
        People should be free to do what they want, so long as they aren't harming others
        
        This will maximise happiness because people are generally in the best position to know what will be good for them
  - - - Allowing consequentialist autonomy will result in a slippery slope towards absolutist autonomy
        
        Fisher argues that once you accept that people have the right to die, you have no way to prevent slipping down the slope to allowing it in all cases where people want it
        
        In that case, autonomy cannot avoid the issues faced by Nozick's version
- - - - For example, if someone has a very low quality of life and an autonomous wish to die, it seems that Fletcher would accept euthanasia
        
        However if someone is pressured into euthanasia by their family who are greedy for inheritance or by society making them feel like a failure or a burden, or it they have a short-term issue like Singer's example of a lovesick teenager, Fletcher would think it wrong to allow euthanasia in such cases
  - - - People are not perfectly loving so if given the power to judge what is good or bad, people will do selfish or even cruel things
        
        People's loving nature can be corrupted by power
        
        Someone might find it loving to manipulate/pressure someone into or out of euthanasia, perhaps if they will get inheritance to pay for their children's food or something. Some might find it loving to end their life because they feel like a burden
  - - - People are more mature and can be trusted with more freedom to break ethical rules if it is the loving thing
- - - - Application to euthanasia. Euthanasia violates the primary precept to protect and preserve human life
        
        The Catholic Church follows natural law and applies the double effect, arguing that passive euthanasia is justified so long as the intention is no to kill
  - - - Aquinas' natural law ethics and the sanctity of life principle are increasingly seen as outdated
        
        In medieval times it was useful to simply have strict rules banning all killing, because violence and killing was much more common and therefore needed to be strongly restricted
        
        People were less self-controlling and less educated, so they needed clear simple rules to follow
        
        The issue clearly is that society has progressed
        
        So, the primary precepts are no longer useful. They were designed for a different time and are now increasingly outdated. Society can now afford to gradually relax the inflexibility of its rules and think about how they might be reinterpreted to better fit modern society