euthanasia Flashcards
(25 cards)
passive euthanasia
withholding medication or life-sustaining technology and letting them die
active euthanasia
assistance in dying
would a utilitarian agree that it’s morally worse to do harm than it is to allow that same harm?
no, harm is being done regardless
killing and letting die thesis
it is morally worse to kill someone than to let that person die
smith and jones
- smith drowns his 6yr old cousin and inherits a fortune
- jones watches his 6yr old cousin drown and inhereits a fortune
rachels’ first argument
2 premises + conclusion
1) if the K/LD thesis is correct, then what smith did is worse than what jones did
2) what smith did is not worse than what jones did
c) K/LD thesis is false
conclusion is premise 2 in argument 2
rachels’ second argument
2 premises + conclusion
1) if all else equal, killing isn’t worse than letting die, but if killing prevents lots of suffering, we are morally obligated to kill e.g. terminal cancer patient
2) all else equal, killing is not worse than letting die
c) in situations in which killing, we prevent a lot of suffering, we are morally obligated to kill
the most common objection to rachels’ arguments
- in passive euthanasia, doctor doesn’t do anything to bring about patient’s death
- in active euthanasia, doctor does do something to bring about patient’s death and kills them
rachels’ response to the objection
letting someone die is an action by not acting, so killing someone isn’t always morally worse than letting someone die
what does foot claim in response to rachels’ argument regarding the difference between killing and letting die?
- rachels is wrong to claim that there’s no moral difference between killing and letting die
- there is a difference, it just has to be explained differently
agency
exercise of capacity to act
agent of harm
someone who is actively inflicting harm
-perceived as worse than those who let the harm happen
rescue I and II
rescue I: choosing to save five people from a rising tide while leaving one person to die is morally just because the rescuers aren’t actively causing the single person’s death
rescue II: running over one person to save five is unethical because it involves actively harming someone
moral duties
moral duties include duty of beneficence and duty against malfeasance
duty of beneficence
duty to help
duty against malfeasance
duty to not harm
foot on justified harm vs. allowance of harm
- justified harm is rare and harder to justify than justified allowance of harm
- it takes more to override the duty not to harm than the duty to prevent harm
foot’s response to rachels’ first argument
foot argues rachels’ smith and jones example doesn’t disprove the difference between killing and letting die
both are wrong but involve different duties:
- positive duty → to prevent harm
- negative duty → to not cause harm
just because both can be immoral doesn’t mean they’re always morally equal
deontology
velleman
right actions are those that conform with our moral duties; consequences of our actions matter less
kant’s formula of humanity
velleman
always treat people as valuable individuals—a being with a rational nature—as an end and never merely as a means
distinction between using someone as a means and using them as a mere means
velleman
using someone as a means – each party has consented; there’s an agreement or benefit
using someone as a mere means – treating someone like a tool, without caring about their well-being or consent
kantian personhood
velleman
rational nature: the ability to use reasoning for decisions
intrinsic value
something that is valuable in and of itself; value doesn’t depend on anything outside of it
extrinsic value
something that is valuable because it’s valuable for something or to someone
people have an intrinsic value because they’re a person (dignity)
