User:Atcovi/Ethics/Lecture7


 * Meta-ethics: Top-down ethics (theory --> moral dilemmas)
 * Applied ethics: Bottom-down ethics (moral dilemmas --> theories to explain)

Euthanasia
Euthanasia = "the good death". Euthanasia has been used in multiple contexts, including assisted suicide, animals & cases of genocide. We are looking at it being used in a medical environment.

Passive euthanasia is when a life-sustaining treatment is intentionally taken away from the consenting patient. An example of this is taking away life support for a person who is not responding and has lost all abilities to function as a proper human being. It is allowed in all 50 states. See the Terri Schiavo case.

On the other hand, active euthanasia invokes the consenting patient's death by means of the patient recieving the toxic substance. This is limited to a few states across the East Coast for its controversy. The patient must be physically able to take this treatment, otherwise it is illegal. See Brittany Maynard.

Jack Kevorkian was a huge activist for assisted suicide.

James Rachels
He believes there is no distinction between passive & active euthanasia and that both are bad. An example he brings is passive euthanasia in the case of parents with a kid with down syndrome. Rachels believe you must accept euthanasia as a whole is morally incorrect or morally correct. Rachels uses the Smith/Jones argument.

In this case, Smith is taking care of his nephew after his parents died in a terrible accident. His nephew will legally consume a lot of his parents' money when he turns 18, to which Smith has 0% access to. Smith comes up with a bad-intentioned plan to drown his nephew in the bathtub by lightly pushing his head into the bathtub water until he dies of suffocation. He is [i'm assuming?] successful in this plan.

Jones is in the same situation - BUT his nephew, instead of being actively harmed, gets up, knocks his head against the wall and drowns. Jones refuses to help his nephew. Is this any morally different from a doctor allowing the death of his patient/actively participing in his patient's death?

Rachels finally points out the consequences of each method. Should passive euthanasia be allowed if active euthanasia would simply end the suffering of the patient in question? Should Lela starve for 8 days or just be given medication to die almost immediately?

Bonnie Steinbach
Steinbach argues against Rachels. She does agree with the fact that passive enuthasia isn't as good as people claim it is. Steinbach believes we should be minimizing and controlling passive & active euthanasia.

Intentions matter! Rachels assumes that the doctor's intentions are the exact same in both situations and that they are both intending on killing their patient. Steinbach says that the doctor's intentions are not always bad and that they are serving the patient's right to refuse treatment (passive). This means that there is a significant moral difference based off of intentions, therefore both of these methods cannot be compared.

The question to look into is that does a terminally ill patient have the right to die (Kevorkian)? Thomas Sullivan argues that doctors are the worst people to go to in talking about the matter of euthanasia as they get so emotion over these issues. Sullivan concludes that although the doctors may have good intentions, they are still paving a 'road to hell'.

Capital Punishment

 * Restorative Punishment - Punishment that "restores" the criminal back into society as a better person.
 * Retributive Punishment - Punishment that is aimed at getting revenge from the criminal (death penalty, life in death, etc.).

- Determent?

- Costs? (cost more to kill someone than to keep them in prison for life)

- Race? (minorities > majority recieve death penalty)

- Innocent lives? Joe Arridy

Is it the morally correct thing to impose capital punishment or not?

Walter Burns

 * Pro death-penalty
 * "Killing them is respecting them as it is the punishment they deserve"
 * Society will become reckless if death penalty is not imposed (angry)
 * Law must be respected
 * Not angry at henious crimes = bad citizens

Steven Nathanson

 * Anger must be limited and cannot be given into 24/7 (just because one gets angry does not give them the automatic right to put them to death)
 * "Just because it is the law, doesn't mean it must be automatically respected" - someone who aims to change the law for the better is better than the 'blind follower'
 * Criminals still have rights (cruel & unusual punishment = death)
 * Human life still means something. We must respect even the worse of the worse peoples' lives.
 * Moral monsters = political leaders who enact genoicides, they don't deserve death pen.
 * (Panopticon)