NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Legalization of Euthanasia and Sterilization (1) The issue of legalizing euthanasia and non consensual sterilization of the mentally retarded people is traditionally surrounded with public controversy in countries where Christian tradition has deep roots. Majority of people who are opposed to it, believe in the sacredness of life, even without being able to substantiate their point of view. Their argument is very simple God has given life to an individual and it is only up to this individual to do what he feels is right with it, because he possesses a free will. However, when terminally ill patients ask for the euthanasia to be performed on them, Bible thumper's deny them their right to be masters of their own destiny, without coming up with a clear reason why. Let us analyze the subject of mercy killing and sterilization in the context of determinism vs.
free will. According to the proponents of free will concept, human beings are endowed with a unique ability that allows them to design their own destinies. This point of view derives out of Biblical tradition, which suggests that person can only be saved from eternal damnation if he chooses in favor of pious mode of existence. Humanistic philosophers of 18 th century, such as Voltaire and Russo, also believed that it is conscious choices that define the essence of every individuals life.
However, it was only the matter of time, before Christians and humanists realized that their understanding of human nature is not altogether flawless. The best argument against Christian vision of free will comes from their own holy book if God is omnipotent, than he knows what will happen with person in the future. However, if this is the case, it means that person is deprived of freedom of choice, because his choice is still going to be predetermined on the higher level. The numerous scientific breakthroughs in the field of medicine, throughout 19 th and 20 th centuries, had proven that individuals behavior is largely predetermined by biological factors.
This automatically deprived humanists arguments of their philosophical validity. Thus, we can say that persons life, in general, and different aspects of his behavior are predetermined by genetic factors alone. It explains why some people can score 130 during the IQ tests with ease, while for others, 85 is a limit, no matter how hard they try. This points out to the fact that the value of human life vary on individual basis. If we assume that it is an intellect that allowed homo sapiens to become a dominant specie, than we would have to agree that it is ones intellect only that should be used as universal category, when it comes to assessing the value of individuals life.
Can we really say that the life of Mozart, for example, has the same value as the life of savage from Papua New Guinea, whose vocabulary consists of 100 words? To any person who has not completely lost its ability to think logically, as the result of living in politically correct realm, the answer is going to be negative. In order for us to assess the real value of ones life, we would have to think of such individual from the historic prospective. We would have to consider ones hereditary, as a factor that alone responsible for person's intelligence, health and beauty. Therefore, the value of human life is a relative category. In order to have some value assigned to his or her life, an individual must have a social significance.
Otherwise, we can think of such life as we think of any other form of organic life a set of bodily functions, maintained by the blind instinct. This is why, in the argument, regarding sterilization, it is utterly inappropriate to refer to the concept of free will, as many people do. Patients that are affected by mental retardation are being deprived of free will by their parents, who did not bother to check out whether they carry a defective gene, before deciding to conceive a child. It is not only socially justifiable to have such people sterilized but also humane.
The same applies to legalization of euthanasia. We can say that terminally ill people are also deprived of the free will, because we cannot discuss their right do die in the context of them having an option. Therefore, euthanasia does not allow patients to choose in favor of death, as moralists suggests - it is only the technical mean of easing ones suffering and nothing else. (2) The issue of legalizing sterilization and euthanasia is better addressed from the perspective of Cultural Relativism. According to this theory, the ethical properties of the same socio-political phenomenon can be opposite, if we look at it from different cultural points of view.
For example, in ancient Sparta it was common practice to throw physically defective children off the cliff, in order to preserve the biological quality Spartan society, as whole. We can refer to such practice as involuntary euthanasia. Back than, this was being considered as something absolutely normal and necessary. The reason for this is very simple Spartans were not affected by Christianity.
Their ethical doctrine was being based upon entirely different set of beliefs. This is why, even though that Spartan eugenics might appear for us as being little too cruel, it is important to understand that our negative attitude towards genetic cleansing is culturally biased. Liberal humanism is a very valid ethical concept, but only in certain place in certain time. If we want to get a larger view of controversial issue, we would have to rid ourselves of excessive emotionalism, which is nothing but a result of cultural factors affecting the process of our upbringing. It is understandable why voices in favor of legalizing euthanasia and sterilization are getting louder. This is because the spiritual grip of Christianity, on peoples minds, is becoming weaker, as time goes by.
It is not a secret to anyone that Christianity has entered its dusk's and it would not be too daring to say that it would cease remain a respectable religion in few hundred years from now. It is not just a pure coincidence that only the country where euthanasia is being legalized could also boast the smallest population of religious fanatics, until it opened its door to immigrants from Muslim world. In Nederland, terminally ill patient can be painlessly put to sleep, without doctors going to jail for life, as a consequence. At the same time, there is no an epidemic of mercy killings, because doctors now have their hands untied. However, Christian warriors in America cannot accept the fact that people in other countries might have a different opinion on the issues, regarding life and death. One of them is Wesley Smith, who in his article Now They Want to Euthanize Children compares Dutch doctors to Nazis: In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12, if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness.
But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with adults, it will become an excuse not to provide proper pain control for children who are dying of potentially agonizing maladies such as cancer, and doing away with them instead. Do we live in 1939 again? (Wesley). This kind of logic is a good example that illustrates how ones seemingly logical reasoning can be affected by cultural badness. Wesley simply cannot accept that his opponents opinion might be just as legitimate as his own, this is why he resorts to applying labels, in order to defend his point of view.
This shows that it is pointless to discuss legalization of euthanasia, in the context of whether it would be moral or immoral, because the value of moral dogmas is relative. Instead of threatening the proponents of euthanasia and sterilization with the prospect of eternal damnation, Christians should try to convince their opponents that namely Christian approach to this issue could benefit society the most. They should organize excursions to mental clinics, where severely retarded people are being kept in cages like wild animals, or to the hospitals, where terminally ill patients suffer from unimaginable pain, and tell the visitors that this is an absolutely normal state of affairs and that trying to help these people would constitute a major sin. (3) If we analyze legalization of euthanasia from existentialist prospective, it will appear that there are also going to be more arguments in favor of it then against it. According to Jean-Paul Sartre, individual suffers the most from the fact that others cannot fully understand his essence as intelligent being.
It is a cornerstone of existentialist philosophy, which suggests that finding psychological comfort is only the true purpose of every persons life. Existentialists think it is not a logical reasoning that motivates our actions but passion. The life of every person is something that is limited in space-time continuum, even though that it is directed towards infinity. Therefore, existentialists view peoples lives as being based on absurdist principle. Our psychological strive towards immortality does not come as a result of logical considerations. It is being motivated by irrational factors alone.
In its turn, this causes suffering. We can say that Existentialism is nothing but Buddhism, which is adapted to the realities of post-modern era. It is well known that Buddhism associates existence with suffering. Therefore, the major existentialist philosophers would also be in favor of legalizing euthanasia, but they would be against sterilization, because they deny objectivity to the social applications of eugenics. Existentialism is a philosophy of absurd and frustration, which derives out of peoples biological quality being undermined by degenerative political and religious doctrines. People who are not biologically adequate assume that others are being just the same way and that there is no need to be concerned about improving society's quality, as whole, because this would constitute the onslaught on individual freedom.
Existentialists welcome death for the sake of death and they are simply incapable of thinking about death as a tool that can improve life. Existentialists view euthanasia as the form of suicide, rather then a humane way of dealing with pain and suffering. Therefore, their social stance towards legalizing euthanasia and sterilization is not affected by socio-political considerations. At the same time, they are well aware of the absurdist nature of Judeo-Christian morality, which is why it is hard to imagine them shouting life is sacred, during the rallies against euthanasia.
Bibliography: Chastain, Jane Legalized euthanasia for U. S. ? . 4 Dec. 2000. World Net Daily. 23 Aug. 2007. web Phone, Frank Why is Life Sacred? . 2005. Priests for Life. 23 Aug. 2007. web Overbye, Dennis Free Will: Now You Have It, Now You Dont. 2 Jan. 2007.
The New York Times. 23 Aug. 2007. web Smith, Wesley Now They Want to Euthanize Children. 9 Sep. 2003. The Daily Standard. 23 Aug. 2007. web
Free research essays on topics related to: legalizing euthanasia, point of view, terminally ill patients, value of human life, eternal damnation
Research essay sample on Legalization Of Euthanasia And Sterilization
