Ethical Theories and Euthanasia: A Discussion, Study notes of Modern Philosophy

Download Ethical Theories and Euthanasia: A Discussion and more Study notes Modern Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! 1 PHIL 140 §§0103 (1:00pm Armory 0103), 0106 (10:00 am Art & Soc 3221), 0107 (12:00 pm Phys 4208) Discussion Notes Feb. 15, 2008 Discussion Questions: Euthanasia & James Rachels’ (1975) “Active and Passive Euthanasia” 1 (Note that the ‘answers’ below are based on consensus, and so can be modified.) General Questions: 1. Recall that Subjectivism, Cultural Relativism, and Objectivism are general (meta- ethical) positions (Feb. 1). On the other hand: Utilitarianism (Bentham-Mill), Kant’s Deontology (duty-based ethics), and Virtue Ethics (Aristotle) are specific theories of morality (let’s abbreviate: UBM, KD, VEA). See table below: In which area(s) do you think the above three ethical theories (UBM, KD, VEA) are most likely to fit (or do you think some could fit in several areas: i.e. is it possible for UBM to be both objectivist and cultural relativist, for instance?) Answer: It may appear consistent with UBM to adopt any of the three meta-ethical positions, depending on how one wishes to characterize pleasure/pain. If it is argued that the experience of pleasure/pain is a purely subjective matter (hence objectively impossible to rank) then one could advocate in an overall subjectivism. However, this would also defeat the purpose of the utility principle, which has some minimally objective standard (greatest happiness equitably distributed over the greatest number). Hence it’s most consistent with cultural relativism (happiness and suffering are relative to culture) or objectivism (kinds of experiences of happiness/suffering are universal—don’t depend on culture—and quantifiable.) On the other hands, KD belongs squarely in the objectivism category. (Kantian duty ethics rest on the presumably objective basis, i.e. universal and rational, of the Categorical Imperative, regardless of the consequences, whether subjective, culturally relative, etc.) VEA may seem to belong to all three, depending on how strong (or weak) a notion of the ‘golden mean’ one advocates. Since Aristotle argued that moral virtues (stable dispositions modeled after a standard of excellence) were acquired through practice, this presupposes what one means by experience. One can define experience in purely subjective terms, culturally relative, or objective terms. However, like in the case of the utility principle, it’s hard to imagine a ‘golden mean’ notion carrying much weight if one cannot agree on what the undesirable extremes are, outside one’s immediate and subjective experience. Subjectivism Cultural Relativism Objectivism KD UBM UBM VEA VEA VEA 1 New England Journal of Medicine, 292 no. 2 (Jan. 9, 1975): 78-80 2 2. Based on your answer to 1. above, recall the grid (Feb. 13 lecture-modified from Vaughn’s article. 2 ) Where on the above map would you think specific ethical theor(ies) under a general metaethical position(s) would draw the line between what is morally permissible and impermissible? Answer: Though tentative, it appears as though all positions (UBM, KD, VEA) would support the relatively non-controversial passive voluntary euthanasia in most (if not all) cases. Also, that all positions would support active voluntary or passive non-voluntary in some instances. (For instance, as mentioned in the text, one could adopt Kant’s position –the formulae for humanity-i.e., to treat all rational beings as ends, not means, and argue that that in the non-voluntary case, when someone is reduced to a permanent vegetative state, then prolonging that person’s life would be treating the person as a means, not as an end. Some (Zina Makar, §0107) read a Kantian absolutist position into the conclusions of Rachel, echoing along this formula for humanity line. Others offered a similar defense of euthanasia (besides just passive/voluntary) invoking such a notion (Jad Steinman, §0106). On the other hand, also consistent according to Kant’s position, others argued against euthanasia using Kant’s notion of formula for humanity as well as morality based on ‘natural law.’ (Brandon Farley, §0107) Also, regarding Kant’s notion of moral value (based on intention) most agreed that the Hippocratic Oath was primarily a document centering on clarifying what the intentions of the caregiver ought to be. By far, it was the consensus across all three discussion sections that the issue of passive versus active euthanasia (whether voluntary or non-voluntary) seems to center on a clash between act versus rule utilitarianism. In other words, it is natural to read an act- utilitarian theme running throughout Rachels, since he focuses on the suffering of the 2 Vaughn (212) draws distinctions among voluntary (Vol), non-voluntary (NVol), and involuntary (IVol.) euthanasia. In the last case (involuntary) it is performed against the person’s own wishes, hence can be automatically morally ruled out. While non-voluntary euthanasia is the case in which it’s performed based on the guardian’s consent (patient incapable of or incapacitated from making such a decision) Voluntary Non-Voluntary Passive Active All All All ALL KD, VEA