If you value your time do not bother reading everything in italics:
According to Beauchamp the distinction between "killing" and "letting die" is problematic because there are overlapping cases where the factual basis for each doesn't satisfy the commonsense approach to the problem. Beauchamp's example is of "Mr. Mafia," a hitman who wanders into a hospital room with a shot policeman on life-support. By pulling the plug "Mr. Mafia" is letting "natural" order of being shot progress and the cop dies. The problem is that we want ot say "Mr. Mafia" killled the officer.
Hooker, arguing as a rule-ultilitarian sates that preservation of autonomy is the "benefit" that is to be maximized. Using this as his prime theorem he is quickly able to agree with voluntary euthanasia while vehemently opposing involuntary cases. If the goal is to preserve and respect autonomy, then a person (regardless of status) should be allowed to die when and how they choose. If a person is in a hospital bed and wants to die rather than suffer, the morally right thing to do is to end their suffering. On the other hand, killing someone against their wishes (involuntary euthanasia) or when their wishes are unknown/can't be determined is ristricting that person's autonomy (right to decide how/when they die) and that is morally wrong to Hooker (as a rule utilitarian).
Hardwig, however, takes issue with a blanket preservation of autonomy. To Hardwig there comes a time when a person is no longer a benefit to his/her family but rather a burden. Such a person has a "duty to die" which overrides their autonomy. In an ideal situation this person would realize this so their autonomous choice would be to die, but there are instances where people live beyond that point and cause problems (both financial and emotional) to the family and society. Therefore, if people were allowed to live until they decided to die this moral problem of living too long would be unsolved.
The way Hardwig accounts for the interests of the family is poor. There are cases where this system wouldn't work because of its removal of autonomy. Say a family decided their grandfather should (against his wishes) die because they would collect the insurance. Or even better, say a family keeps an ailing parent alive and in pain because they don't want to see them go.
I am cleaning the living room and part of that right now is dealing with old school notes. That was my answer to some question on an Ethics test back at tech. Honestly, I started reading it and was again reminded how I can't write well and how it sounded like complete jargon-bullshit, but then by the end of typing it I remembered shit about the class and it started to make sense. Now that I'm robbed of my punchline (making fun of my own inability to write and attempt to cover it up with other bullshit hoping no professor would delve deep enough to actual learn how little I knew . . . then I read it and it makes sense. Only because I spent time typing this do I both posting. Also, the ending sucks ass. It just sort of cuts off.
According to Beauchamp the distinction between "killing" and "letting die" is problematic because there are overlapping cases where the factual basis for each doesn't satisfy the commonsense approach to the problem. Beauchamp's example is of "Mr. Mafia," a hitman who wanders into a hospital room with a shot policeman on life-support. By pulling the plug "Mr. Mafia" is letting "natural" order of being shot progress and the cop dies. The problem is that we want ot say "Mr. Mafia" killled the officer.
Hooker, arguing as a rule-ultilitarian sates that preservation of autonomy is the "benefit" that is to be maximized. Using this as his prime theorem he is quickly able to agree with voluntary euthanasia while vehemently opposing involuntary cases. If the goal is to preserve and respect autonomy, then a person (regardless of status) should be allowed to die when and how they choose. If a person is in a hospital bed and wants to die rather than suffer, the morally right thing to do is to end their suffering. On the other hand, killing someone against their wishes (involuntary euthanasia) or when their wishes are unknown/can't be determined is ristricting that person's autonomy (right to decide how/when they die) and that is morally wrong to Hooker (as a rule utilitarian).
Hardwig, however, takes issue with a blanket preservation of autonomy. To Hardwig there comes a time when a person is no longer a benefit to his/her family but rather a burden. Such a person has a "duty to die" which overrides their autonomy. In an ideal situation this person would realize this so their autonomous choice would be to die, but there are instances where people live beyond that point and cause problems (both financial and emotional) to the family and society. Therefore, if people were allowed to live until they decided to die this moral problem of living too long would be unsolved.
The way Hardwig accounts for the interests of the family is poor. There are cases where this system wouldn't work because of its removal of autonomy. Say a family decided their grandfather should (against his wishes) die because they would collect the insurance. Or even better, say a family keeps an ailing parent alive and in pain because they don't want to see them go.
I am cleaning the living room and part of that right now is dealing with old school notes. That was my answer to some question on an Ethics test back at tech. Honestly, I started reading it and was again reminded how I can't write well and how it sounded like complete jargon-bullshit, but then by the end of typing it I remembered shit about the class and it started to make sense. Now that I'm robbed of my punchline (making fun of my own inability to write and attempt to cover it up with other bullshit hoping no professor would delve deep enough to actual learn how little I knew . . . then I read it and it makes sense. Only because I spent time typing this do I both posting. Also, the ending sucks ass. It just sort of cuts off.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home