Introduction to Philosophy Euthanasia The Argument From Nature The Argument From Self Interest The Argument From Practical Effects References Introduction to Philosophy Euthanasia Carnegie Mellon University 14th September 2015
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Introduction to PhilosophyEuthanasia
Carnegie Mellon University
14th September 2015
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Practical Matters
If you’ve recently joined the class, please get in touch with meas soon as possible so I can help you get caught up on the workyou’ve missed
Just a reminder your third writing assignment is due onWednesday
The Gay-Williams and Rachels readings are available onBlackboard
Remember to check the syllabus to find out the courseschedule and where to find the readings!
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
A reminder . . .
The topics that we’ll be tackling in the “ethical issues” portionof the course can be difficult and provoke strong emotionalreactions
Discussing a topic with someone who takes a different positionfrom us can be very valuable!
But when discussing these issues it is important to berespectful of each other
Remember that in philosophy we want to focus on thearguments or the reasons that can be given in favor of theposition
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
ReferencesEuthanasia
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Gay-Williams
Gay-Williams is a pseudonym
The author’s real name is Ronald Munson
Why the pseudonym?
He was editing a collection of articles and wanted to include anarticle against euthanasia
Apparently he didn’t think existing arguments againsteuthanasia were good and so tried to come up with better onesin his article, though he does not endorse them
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Kinds of Euthanasia
Passive euthanasia: Withdrawing treatment, allowing thepatient to die.
Active euthanasia: Taking an action, like administering alethal drug, to cause the person to die
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Kinds of Euthanasia
Voluntary euthanasia: The patient consents to euthanasia
Involuntary euthanasia: Euthanasia is carried out in violationof a patients’s consent—in other words, murder
Nonvoluntary euthanasia: Euthanasia is carried out on apatient who is unable to consent
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Gay-Williams’s Definition ofEuthanasia
How does Gay-Williams define euthanasia?
“...intentionally taking the life of a presumably hopeless person.Whether the life is one’s own or that of another, the taking ofit is still euthanasia” (Gay-Williams, 1989, 98)
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Gay-Williams’s Definition ofEuthanasia
In other words, three conditions must be met for something tobe considered euthanasia according to GW:
1 A patient is killed
2 That patient cannot reasonably be expected to recoverfrom their illness or injury
3 The death of the patient is deliberate and intentional
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Gay-Williams’s Definition ofEuthanasia
What does Gay-Williams think about passive euthanasia?
That it is not euthanasia at all
He says conditions (1) and (3) are not fulfilled
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Gay-Williams’s Arguments
Gay-Williams presents three arguments against euthanasia:
1 The Argument from Nature
2 The Argument from Self-Interest
3 The Argument from Practical Effects
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Nature
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Nature
Take a minute to look again at Gay-Williams’s “argument fromnature” (pages 98–99 in the reading). Think about how youwould summarize it to a friend who is not taking this course.
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Nature
Here’s one way of simplifying and summarizing Gay-Williams’sargument:
1 Euthanasia is an act which does violence to a natural goal
2 All acts which do violence to a natural goal undermine ourdignity
3 All acts which undermine our dignity are morally wrong
4 Euthanasia is morally wrong
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Nature
With your neighbor, briefly discuss the following question: isthe “argument from nature” a “good” argument, i.e. are thepremises true and do they support the conclusion?
1 Euthanasia is an act which does violence to a natural goal
2 All acts which do violence to a natural goal undermine ourdignity
3 All acts which undermine our dignity are morally wrong
4 Euthanasia is morally wrong
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Nature
1 Euthanasia is an act which does violence to a natural goal
2 All acts which do violence to a natural goal undermine ourdignity
3 All acts which undermine our dignity are morally wrong
4 Euthanasia is morally wrong
As presented, the above argument is valid. But it can beargued that it is not sound.
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Nature
Sample Criticisms:
Premise 3: All acts which do violence to a natural goalundermine our dignity
This seems very strong! Presumably there are acts whichpromote one or more natural goals but violate others. Do theseall undermine our dignity?
What about our autonomy? If an act does violence to a naturalgoal but respects our autonomy, is our dignity still undermined?
Perhaps we need to clarify the meaning of “dignity” . . .
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Self Interest
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Self Interest
Take a minute to look again at Gay-Williams’s “argument fromself interest” (pages 99–100 in the reading). Think about howyou would summarize it to a friend who is not taking thiscourse.
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Self Interest
Here’s one way to summarize Gay-Williams’s argument fromself interest:
1 Euthanasia is an act which may possibly work against thepatient’s best interests
2 All acts which may possibly work against the patient’sbest interests are morally wrong
3 Euthanasia is morally wrong
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Self Interest
With your neighbor, briefly discuss the following question: isthe argument from self interest a “good” argument?
1 Euthanasia is an act which may possibly work against thepatient’s best interests
2 All acts which may possibly work against the patient’s bestinterests are morally wrong
3 Euthanasia is morally wrong
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Self Interest
1 Euthanasia is an act which may possibly work against thepatient’s best interests
2 All acts which may possibly work against the patient’s bestinterests are morally wrong
3 Euthanasia is morally wrong
The above argument is valid, but it can be argued that it is notsound
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Self Interest
Sample Criticisms:
Premise 2: All acts which may possibly work against thepatient’s best interests are morally wrong
This seems incredibly strong!
For example, withdrawing treatment, which GW doesn’t countas euthanasia, may possibly work against the patient’s bestinterest. Does this mean it is morally wrong?
Again, we may also wonder about autonomy.
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From Practical Effects
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From PracticalEffects
Take a minute to look again at Gay-Williams’s “argument frompractical effects” (pages 99–100 in the reading). Think abouthow you would summarize it to a friend who is not taking thiscourse.
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From PracticalEffects
Here’s one way to summarize the argument from practicaleffects:
1 Approving euthanasia will lead to bad consequences(decline in the standard of medical care, cases ofinvoluntary euthanasia)
2 If approving euthanasia will lead to bad consequences thenit should not be approved
3 Euthanasia should not be approved
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From PracticalEffects
Together with your neighbor, briefly discuss the followingquestion: is the argument from practical effects a “good”argument?
1 Approving euthanasia will lead to bad consequences (decline inthe standard of medical care, cases of involuntary euthanasia)
2 If approving euthanasia will lead to bad consequences then itshould not be approved
3 Euthanasia should not be approved
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From PracticalEffects
1 Approving euthanasia will lead to bad consequence (decline inthe standard of medical care, cases of involuntary euthanasia)
2 If approving euthanasia will lead to bad consequences then itshould not be approved
3 Euthanasia should not be approved
The argument above is valid, but again it can be argued that itis not sound.
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From PracticalEffects
Sample Criticisms:
Premise 1: Approving euthanasia will lead to bad consequences(decline in the standard of medical care, cases of involuntaryeuthanasia)
How likely are these consequences? Are they avoidable?
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
The Argument From PracticalEffects
Sample Criticisms:
Premise 2: If approving euthanasia will lead to badconsequences then it should not be approved
What about the benefits? If the pros outweigh the cons, shouldit still not be approved?
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Questions to Think About
Can you come up with other, more persuasive argumentsagainst (active) euthanasia?
Can you think of persuasive arguments in favor of (active)euthanasia?
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Exit Ticket
Briefly describe and explain one point that came up in classtoday that you thought was either (i) important; (b)interesting; or (c) that you found confusing
Remember to write your name on your exit ticket and submitas you leave
Introductionto Philosophy
Euthanasia
The ArgumentFrom Nature
The ArgumentFrom SelfInterest
The ArgumentFrom PracticalEffects
References
Bibliography
J. Gay-Williams. The wrongfulness of euthanasia. In R. Bairdand S. Rosenbaum, editors, Euthanasia: The Moral Issues.Prometheus Books, 1989.