Ethics and Morals Problems

Jaime Morrill
Phil 1120/Ethics and Morals
Signature Assignment
In respect to euthanasia I will argue with J. Gay-Williams that it is wrong. I believe that it is
atrocious, to even be discussed. In the article “The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia”, J. GayWilliams defines euthanasia as “intentionally taking a life of a presumably hopeless person”. I
believe that definition itself says a lot to this argument that it is wrong. I will make the claim
along with Gay-Williams that taking a life whether being your own or not is or at least should be
wrong and unquestionably at that.
My arguments are this, are they or is anyone ever in the right of mind when they are thinking
euthanasia? Who can make this decision? How can you be? You are dying or sick or whatever
the case may be so how can this be someone making a coherent or rational decision. Also to ask
a family member or a doctor to make this decision is absurd. What if they are tired and see an
easy way out while they are weak and vulnerable. The psychological twist it would create. They
are also emotional beings they clearly shouldn’t be making this decision either.
This cannot be studied because then we have to kill people to learn of the good and bad is this
something as a society we can live with. I do not believe however they should have to suffer, but
relief by death shouldn’t be a consideration. I will show my argument somewhat to a utilitarian
point of view, “the greatest good for the greatest amount”.
Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to learn, study, possible experiment for others to maybe avoid
tragedy of the same? Never give up on someone or deem them hopeless, though it’s horrible to
suffer be it worse that more and more suffer when the opportunity to gain knowledge from one
suffering would have possibly been an answer. We know there are no guarantees for any cure,
relief, operations, medicines, etc., but there is a guarantee of learning and gaining information
and in the meantime possible solution or even a miracle. I believe this helps many; medical
teams, psychologists, scientists, and even the one suffering in knowing that they are helping in a
way maybe not clear yet. They can then feel good morally to have not taken life, even if at
lowest point. Maybe they can gain strength in knowing they are suffering to help someone else.
Death is a guarantee do you really want that kind of guarantee. You cannot be brought back or
have a change of heart.
In the argument of nature I do agree that the human body should do what it naturally wants to do.
It wants to fix, repair, heal, and fight to survive this also being away we learn and get better and
fix others. J. Gay-Williams makes this argument that “euthanasia does violence to the natural
goal of survival.” He is correct I believe that to take this away from the human body is of a bad
moral decision. We would cease to survive or live if this were an option if we give this right. It
would be too easy to give up therefore the will to survive gone.
He also talks of practical effects. This being the professionals dedicated and trained to save and
help lives. J. Gay-Williams claims this could have a corrupting influence as he states nurses and
doctors in severe cases my not try hard and claim they would be “better off dead”. How do we
consciously put them in this position? Why would we want to? This would mess with their
morals, values, professionalism. They should never have to be thinking differently or have to
question themselves or making that decision. Leave them be to do what they do best help us,
take care of us extend our lives or relieve our pain, or learn from us. Let them focus and get
better and better at what they have been trained and love to do. This is why we pay and love
them and trust them. I believe this would shake their whole life and that is an unfair thing to ask
of them.
I like the term “slippery slope”, which J. Gay-Williams uses. I think it’s the perfect term for
what it would create. There are far too many unknowns and irreversible things to consider. I
think it would create a different destruction of people in ways we are not seeing. I think the
consequence would be detrimental to human beings.
My conclusion is that people should not suffer in any way, but there is suffering all around and
everywhere. Maybe we should start to consider what kind of suffering we can handle. I don’t
believe giving us the opportunity to take lives legally is helpful to anybody. I believe it to be
morally wrong. I think the suffering of the mind and soul would far surpass the suffering of
natural or accidental happenings. As a society I believe we would do better to continue to fight
and help each other survive without killing each other legally. Too many people would suffer in
all fields and ways. Legal professionals, medical professionals, and families in ways we should
not ever know. The mind is a beautiful thing and we should respect the fact that we still don’t
fully understand what it can cause or not, it is bigger than we are. Also respect life and what we
are capable of. The miracles we could be taking away would be horrendous and the moral
breakdown I believe would be disastrous.
tolerated or allowed.
Allowing euthanasia in anyway should not be
Jaime Morrill
Phil 1120/Ethics and Morals
Counter Argument paper
In my original paper my argument was against Euthanasia. I will now show my argument being
for euthanasia. My position originally claimed how it could be feasible to consider death by
euthanasia or anyone making this choice. I asked was anyone or could anyone be in the right
mental status to ever make a decision like this. How could we put doctors or medical
professionals in this position to take a life?
Now after a lot of thought and consideration also reading and studying I can see the benefits of
euthanasia and how I was insensitive in my previous argument. I can’t pretend to understand or
even conceive of the pain and suffering people may be in to be at a point to even consider
euthanasia so how can I make the judgment that it is wrong. What would I want? It quite
possibly could be the only thing left to do. There should be nothing wrong with someone who is
coherent enough to make this choice to be able to do it. Making that decision to relieve their
suffering should be fine. Judgment is not ours to make and does not make them killers or bad
people. Taking a life whether legal or not should be taken very seriously and every possible
option should be sought out first. I believe if done with the right people, professionals, medical,
therapists, psychologists, and legal, then the right decision for that situation should be good.
The relief of suffering is good. Without trying to sound careless this would also free up the
people involved in taking care of this person to spend their time on the people who are making
Jaime Morrill
Phil 1120/ Ethics and Morals
Reflective Writing
A. What grade would you give your signature assignment argument? Why?
I would give myself a B or B- grade for my signature assignment. I would give this grade
because I think I counter argued well to my first position. I would only give the B or B-,
because I believe with more time and understanding I could have done a better job. I know
the information but I have a difficult time getting my thoughts and words out of my head
properly onto paper. I need more time in a writing class and learning philosophy. I do
believe I gave a good effort and tried very hard to understand and do the assignment the way
it was asked of us to do.
B. What is the process you took to engage in such a potentially intimidating assignment? Is
there something you would do differently if given a second stab at this assignment?
When starting this assignment I was very intimidated by it. I just jumped in. I started by
rereading the readings we had in class over and over. Then I went back and reread what we
had learned in the beginning of class. After this I looked up information online regarding
what I choose to write on then I talked with other people that had been students and got
opinion. The final thing I did was look at how to write a paper and where to start. Then I
just started writing. I proof read it over and over then had a few others read it as well.