Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism

Abortion is defined as an early termination of a pregnancy, willingly. It is one of the most controversial issues that is brought up because there are so many different views. This ethical issue today is usually split in two groups, one of these views being pro-choice, giving the option to have an abortion to the family of the fetus. The other main view today is pro-life, which states under no circumstance may a life be taken away. There are many concerns with abortion, the biggest being is the fetus an actual person yet? Many of us will never know the answer to that question. Two views I will go deeper into is the view of Immanuel Kant and the view of a Utilitarian.

There is, of course, no single ‘utilitarian perspective’, for there are several versions of utilitarianism and they differ on some aspects of euthanasia. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. According to act-utilitarianism, the right action is the one that, of all the actions open to the agent, has consequences that are better than, or at least no worse than, any other action open to

After considering the system of utilitarianism, it is important to take a close look at the roots and depth of euthanasia as it has infiltrated our society. This will include an in-depth look at the overall idea of euthanasia, a history of the laws that have defined euthanasia, a specific case of euthanasia, and how the decision-making system of utilitarianism can be applied to a specific ethical communicative issue within.

Utilitarianism attempts to consider the interests of others. However, when focusing on happiness, we fail to consider aspects such as rights and justice (EMP 115). When taking into consideration someone who is wanting to perform a deliberate suicide, overall happiness should not be the only issue to consider. This does not seem plausible since, if happiness is the only factor, anyone could justify any case of Euthanasia on grounds that they were unhappy and the world would be a better place without them. Doctors would be able to justify assisted suicide, which could quickly lead down a slippery slope where anyone who wanted to end their life would be able to do so at any time. Utilitarianism considers the feelings of others, correlating with the minimum concept of morality, which states that we take all individuals involved, into account. However, this theory considers everyone’s happiness equally important, which would take away, the intimacy and bonding from those we have close relationships with, as their happiness is no more important than the stranger walking down the street (EMP 116). Utilitarianism poses a strong theory, however it fails to address moral issues based on reason, as their only consideration for moral issues is the overall happiness achieved.

Voluntary Euthanasia has been considered a controversial topic for many decades. The idea of committing an act that involves the taking of human life is not one that many people would care to discuss openly. The main argument is that a person who has been diagnosed with an incurable illness and is in extreme pain and their ability to move has been limited, while that person still has control over their destiney should they be allowed take their own life (Bowie, R.2001). The worldwide debate weather one should be allowed to end a life is still one of the biggest ethical issues. The attempt to providing the rights of the individual is in conflict with the moral values of society. Voluntary Euthanasia has been highly rejected by many religious and pro-life institutions.

Rule utilitarians focus on the consequences of collectively compliance with a rule. In this case, because there is a societal rule that forbids people from killing, a rule utilitarian is likely to oppose active euthanasia. They fear that breaking the rule might lead society down a slippery slope under which legalized murder would be possible. Many rule utilitarians, are, however, okay with passive euthanasia, since it brings about benefits without breaking the rule of killing.

If you had the option to choose, would you rather live in a society where you are treated as a rational being or a world where your contentment in life could all be taken away as a means of contributing to someone else’s happiness. When reflecting upon ethics and the many different theories, it is no question that Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham come to mind. After all, two of the most pronounced ethical theories are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. These two principles are extremely important and have had endless impacts on ethics and the world as a whole. These philosophers, Kant and Bentham, worked to study moral nature and developed theories based on moral philosophy. Although they are quite contrasting,

Over recent years, there has been developments in the debate surrounding the end of life decisions such as euthanasia and assisted suicide. The approach taken by the law is that we should protect human lives and this is supported by a number of different countries that have also prohibited such end of life decisions. Many people wish to die in a dignified manner and believe that the only way they can do this is to take control over how and when they pass and to do so they would wish to use the life-shortening acts of euthanasia or assisted suicide.

Perhaps one of the most debated topics in the medical and political professions is euthanasia. One of the most common practices of euthanasia today is active neonatal euthanasia, which involves the use of opioids or sedatives to end the life of a mentally or physically disabled fetus (Eijnden & Martinovici, 2013, p. 75). Another more recognized form of euthanasia involves “reducing the populations of the poor, the elderly, and the disabled [which people think] is modern, scientific, moral, and progressive” (Ummel, 2016, p. 396). According to the utilitarian ethical system, euthanasia is acceptable and even moral, as it creates happiness for the majority of people.

The question of euthanasia raises serious moral issues, since it implies that active measures will be taken to terminate human life. The definition of “euthanasia” is taken from Keown (1995) with the term mainly refers to a decision that is concerned with direct interventions or withholding of life-prolonging measures and that choice agrees with a person’s own will. Euthanasia can be mainly classified into voluntary and involuntary ones. As involuntary euthanasia is conducted in the absence of an individual’s consent, it is believed to be a kind of murder. While voluntary euthanasia is with the person’s direct consent, it is still highly controversial and is the focus of discussion in this essay.

Euthanasia is the method of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering at a patient's request. The practice of euthanasia is prohibited in most countries, as most religious groups oppose the practice. However, euthanasia, despite the negative connotation it is typically associated with, is a legitimate technique that must be legalized. It is necessary that euthanasia is legalized because similarities exist between euthanasia and an existing medical technique (refusal of extensive treatment), which brings up the question of, "Why is one legal while the other is not?" Furthermore, it is necessary not only because patients deserve a choice in when and how they die but also because, if it is not legalized, patients will go through

The “Right to Die” (Euthanasia) should be further looked into as an option for terminally ill patients and not considered unethical. There has been an issue concerning the topic of “Human Euthanasia” as an acceptable action in society. The research compiled in conjunction with an educated opinion will be the basis for the argument for voluntary Euthanasia in this paper. Patients suffering from an incurable illness, exhausting all medical treatments, should be given the freedom of choice to continue their path of suffering or end it at their own will. “The Right to die” is not suicide, as you are fully aware that death will be certain, as Euthanasia spares the individual of additional pain.

Euthanasia is the practice of ending the life of an individual for the purposes of relieving pain and suffering. Over the years, there has been a big debate about its merits and demerits, and the debate is not about to end anytime soon. However, no matter what side of the debate one supports, it is important to consider a few facts. One, the prolonged stay in hospital is bound to raise medical costs. Two, some medical complications bring suffering and pain to the patient without any possibility of getting back to one 's normal activities of daily living. However, ending the life of a person intentionally may be treated as a serious crime in some jurisdictions. Given these facts, it is evident that making a decision about euthanasia is bound to be a challenging task. Although not everyone might agree, euthanasia is a necessary procedure that relieves the pain and suffering of the patient and rids the family and the government of expensive medical costs that would not necessary improve the life of the patient.

More than likely, a good majority of people have heard about euthanasia at least once in their existence. For those out there who have been living under a rock their entire lives, euthanasia “is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death – ‘mercy killing’, where one person, ‘A’, ends the life of another person, ‘B’, for the sake of ‘B’.” (Kuhse 294). There are people who believe this is a completely logical scenario that should be allowed, and there are others that oppose this view. For the purpose of this essay, I will be defending those who are for euthanasia. My thesis, just by looking at this issue from a logical standpoint, is that if someone is suffering, I believe they should be allowed the right to end their

Healthcare is a huge issue in today’s society. Doctors and nurses throughout the world discuss different topics to try to find cures and support many health issues that people have to face. One such issue, that gives rise to much controversy, is that of euthanasia. This is the act of killing or permitting the death, in a painless manner. Euthanasia is very case-to-case, but no matter the situation, it should never be forced upon anyone.