The moral questions, ethics and meaning of life are all concepts that are closely connected and deal with how people view the value of life, what it means to the whole of human society and individuals. Many ethical and difficult decisions are always questioned, especially ones in relation to euthanasia and if it should be permitted, regulated or forbidden altogether. The argument centers on the positive sides of euthanasia and what makes such actions acceptable, in relation to personal wishes of the individual and lack of suffering.
The meaning of life is the most general aspect of judging about the requirements that must be set out by laws and people’s morals in regarding to the voluntary or involuntary taking of that life.
In “Moral Dilemmas…Can Ethics Help?” it is talked about letting infants die, if they have problems when being born, to prevent further suffering or giving every effort to make sure they survive but have a limited existence. The discussion focuses on Kant and what would be the morally correct thing to do, in the interests of an infant and the future quality of life they will have.
From one perspective, an infant should be treated as an adult and their wishes should be respected, in the want for a happy life. From another, it is possible to see the most good or bad that will come out for the greater society, parents and individuals themselves (Moral Dilemmas…Can Ethics Help, 2). The meaning of life is centered on the pleasures that people will get from being in the world, as all would agree that the negatives and stress is always unwanted, no matter who a person is, from what social class or country.
In his essay on “Death”, Thomas Nagel analyzes the issue of death and how people think of it. He says that “If death is a disadvantage, it is not easy to say when a man suffers it” (Nagel, 3). This leads to believe that it would be much better to let things take their natural turn of events and let the infant die, as they will be unable to suffer, in comparison to a life full of pain and limitations.
Considering euthanasia, the case of Dr. Freud comes to mind. He was having cancer and was in a lot of pain, thus, he requested his dear friend Max Schur, to inject him with a drug and end his suffering. In his writings, doctor accepted the possibility of euthanasia but only if it is requested by the patient themselves and the person administering the drug has no personal interest, want or need to do so (Freud 98).
It is clear that Dr. Freud did not want to suffer any more and made a conscious decision that it would be better to feel nothing, than pain and agony. This sort of thinking is attributed to the infant and it is said that if they could reason as well as an adult can, they would choose death, instead of life in pain. For example, utilitarianism states that people must focus on the greater good for all people and maximize happiness in the process.
The most basic aspect is the utilization of the situation in such a way that everyone does not suffer and get the most out of actions of actors. The end results or consequences of actions is what matters, so people should make their selections very carefully. One of the most important criteria of life is the balance between happiness and unhappiness. If a certain action will bring less happiness, especially to the greater amount of people, then such action should be avoided at all costs.
The decision bases itself on ethics and moral principles of highest order and even takes into consideration the happiness principle and the way people act towards the concept. There are many individuals who support utilitarian division of philosophy because it does not base itself on religion or any other power except a person, humanity and the greater good for people.
The highest ethical criteria define people’s actions and even though the situation matters and different conditions can be present, the end result stays the same and bases itself on most happiness. There is no denying that the individual will not suffer, parents will not constantly worry about their child and the society will not have to contribute to support social programs and health system. In a discussion titled “What Is the Meaning of Life?” a question of whether there are universal laws for it or people make it themselves are asked.
It is discussed that people’s meaning in life has become very confusing and there are two sides, one has a point, the other one does not. It is said that awareness creates meaning, which leads to believe that simply because people understand and interpret the information received, there is a point and they must continue living to gain more knowledge and understating (What is the Meaning of Life 4).
An opposing view looks at euthanasia from a point of a person being given the right to life; no matter by what circumstances it is defined. Comparing necessity to morality, it is that a rational and universal law makes it a must for one person to help another or commit an act that will be moral by the highest standards.
Thus, people must do all in their power to save a person’s life and no matter how bad it might be, it is still morally right because it is better to live and feel, than not. The ethical and moral codes set out by the government in a form of laws reflect the general concepts of goodness and ethical attitude and behavior. This makes euthanasia illegal and it is because people in the strain of agony and pain cannot think clearly and would not be able to imagine future instances of life without pain.
Their thinking is limited by the moment, whereas in the future, it is quite possible that they will get well and can continue living a full and happy life. The duties and responsibilities are based on the moral codes which require respectful and equal treatment to all. These ethics reflect the qualities that every person possesses. This is why it is important to create a system that bases its laws and regulations on highest moral standards of ethics and equality.
As an opposing view to euthanasia, this could be said to be the fact that the highest moral ethic is to let a person live their life because they have already received it and they exist in the world. Some might argue that people do not have a moral right to decide whether they want or must live, as their life is not theirs directly, they were not the ones who have given it to themselves and so, their decision is unimportant.
But from the other side, people are given a conscious thought to be able to make such decisions. Reason and logic are part of humanity and is specifically the separation people have from other animal species. It is true that some animals do have the ability to reason but the moral and ethical considerations are in the hands of humans. In the end, it is argued that as intellectual creatures, people should have the right to choose but there should be strict circumstances that regulate such behavior (Cavan 39).
The modern society has many ethical and moral issues that are constantly debated and there are both positive and negative sides. Because morality is one of the major qualities of humanity, it can be seen why euthanasia is argued to be allowed and people should be able to choose themselves. The collective of all the moments of suffering that individuals will experience, together with the pain of their relatives, friends and society, create a lot of negativity and the purpose of life is to avoid any unwanted situations and sensations.
But it is also argued that the highest and most ethical morality is to endure, suffer and learn from the process, no matter how painful and disturbing it is. There is much more arguments that must be discussed but future research should focus on the individual and their wants and needs because life belongs to a person and not society.
Works Cited
Cavan, Seamus. Euthanasia: The Debate Over the Right to Die. New York, United States: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2000. Print.
Freud, Sigmund. The Letters of Sigmund Freud and Otto Rank. Maryland, United States: JHU Press, 2012. Print.
“Moral Dilemmas…Can Ethics Help”. Intelecom., Teleac, Pasadena, n.d. Television.
Nagel, Thomas. Mortal Questions. New York, United States: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Print.
“What is the Meaning of Life”. Intelecom., Teleac, Pasadena, n.d. Television.