Jaime Morrill Phil 1120/Ethics and Morals Signature Assignment Euthanasia 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.