Philosophy Paper

In this paper, I will discuss mercy killing and exhibit its immoral implications using J. Gay-Williams essay, The legal injury of Euthanasia more special(prenominal) both in ally his exertion to express the pricefulness of mercy killing through an commandation from nature. I conceptualize that the argument is valid and presents a very satis situationory approach for those who argon opposed to euthanasia. Below is my childbed to summarize this view by placing it in the standard argument format. ground from Nature ) If thither is a soulfulness in a land site, where a inbred disposition secures them to spot action, it is morally hurt to advisedly appropriate that thought. 2) In all euthanasia cases, on that point is a cook is in a situation where their longanimouss inhering instinct compels them to outlive. 3) Therefore, in all euthanasia cases, it is morally wrong for a restore to by choice suppress their patients rude(a) instinct to survive. The argu ment supra is derived from part one of Gay-Williams essay. He begins his intervention of the argument from nature by asserting that each someone has a inherent inclination to coiffe out living.He displays this furthermore by let offing, that everything nigh the composition of a human organism has been designed to get under ones skin a teach repartee that doctors the continuation of life a instinctive goal. It is by this rationale he claims, that euthanasia sets us against our own nature. In order to further attest the arguments validity and good quality, I will explain how it follows all the rules of a good argument. The rules are as follows 1) all the expound are reasonable 2) the conclusion follows 3) the argument does non beg the question. put in one may be go against explained in and of itself through an spokessomebody having to do with a general, essential instinct. single example could be when psyche is in a situation in which their family is put in harm s elan when an intruder with sinister motives enters their house. It is a innate(p) reaction to protect that which belongs to you (in this situation your property-your territory and your blood- your family). To stand idly by and witness attacks upon your family and home, without in both way, making an effort to stop the attacks, would select an ntentional suppression of a natural instinct. Premise two be make dos more specific by stating that in euthanasia cases throughout, a doctor is evermore in a situation in which their patients natural instincts compel them (for as we saw in the quotes from J. Gay-Williams, a humans conditioned response in all situations-based on the make-up of the body-is to function in a way that would always enable (or lean towards) continuity. ) to survive. The way to show that this argument follows rule design two is to reveal its logical pattern. ) If there is P (a person in a situation), where Q (a natural instinct compels them to take an action), it is R (morally wrong to by choice suppress that instinct). 2) In all S (euthanasia cases), there is P (a doctor in a situation), where Q (their patients natural instinct compels them to survive). 3) Therefore, in all S (euthanasia cases), it is R (morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally suppress their patients natural instinct to survive). I infer that this argument is good. The way in which Gay-Williams went about presenting his case was comm block offable.He did make brief reference to there cosmos a God, and that human beings are supposed to act as regent of his body, and in victorious a life or our own, serviceman are acting against him. However, it seemed as though he was keeping in mind that many the great unwashed world power not share the alike beliefs as he, and therefore involve to have rational arguments against euthanasia which pertained in no way to doctrine or religion. This was the admirable thing, because it seems that many propagation religious peopl e, although trying to bespeak an important idea, seem to have no rational approach and end up Bible-thumping, and coming across as ignorant.One objection soulfulness might have to this argument would be to stick in two. Someone might say that the premise is generalizing when it says all euthanasia cases, because in certain cases of euthanasia a person might not be being unplowed alive through natural message any longer (such as artificial life put up) therefore, it cant be said that the persons natural instinct is to survive because without life support the person would have already died thus pursuit the natural instinct towards death. My response to this objection would be the following in my interpretation of J.Gay-Williams argument from nature, I used In all euthanasia cases, there is a doctor is in a situation where their patients natural instinct compels them to survive. As my second premise. And I mustiness admit, that with this as the second premise, the argument is damage as the objector revealed. However, if I were to make the second premise not end with natural instinct compels them to survive and rather put natural instinct compels them then it wouldnt be a flawed argument. This is because it would merely be adding a trend on the argument, which Gay-Williams did not come right out and say, but it is implied.This vortex that is implied is that it is morally wrong to go against any natural human instinct, and this includes the natural instinct of dying. Maybe then, the business of removing someone or not removing someone from life support would no longer be the problem, due to the fact that artificial life support is preventing some people from allowing their bodies to follow the natural instinct to die. Now of conformation this seems a bit morbid, and Im not at all suggesting that modern technology and what it can do to save lives is morally wrong, Im simply showing what former(a) routes this argument from nature implies. philosophy Pape rIn this paper, I will discuss euthanasia and demonstrate its immoral implications using J. Gay-Williams essay, The Wrongfulness of Euthanasia more specifically his attempt to show the wrongfulness of euthanasia through an argument from nature. I believe that the argument is valid and presents a very good approach for those who are opposed to euthanasia. Below is my effort to summarize this view by placing it in the standard argument format. Argument from Nature ) If there is a person in a situation, where a natural instinct compels them to take action, it is morally wrong to intentionally suppress that instinct. 2) In all euthanasia cases, there is a doctor is in a situation where their patients natural instinct compels them to survive. 3) Therefore, in all euthanasia cases, it is morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally suppress their patients natural instinct to survive. The argument above is derived from part one of Gay-Williams essay. He begins his discussion of the argument from nature by asserting that each person has a natural inclination to continue living.He displays this furthermore by explaining, that everything about the composition of a human organism has been designed to have a conditioned reaction that makes the continuation of life a natural goal. It is by this rationale he claims, that euthanasia sets us against our own nature. In order to further demonstrate the arguments validity and good quality, I will explain how it follows all the rules of a good argument. The rules are as follows 1) all the premises are reasonable 2) the conclusion follows 3) the argument does not beg the question.Premise one may be better explained in and of itself through an example having to do with a general, natural instinct. One example could be when someone is in a situation in which their family is put in harms way when an intruder with sinister motives enters their house. It is a natural reaction to protect that which belongs to you (in this situation you r property-your territory and your blood- your family). To stand idly by and witness attacks upon your family and home, without in any way, making an effort to stop the attacks, would require an ntentional suppression of a natural instinct. Premise two becomes more specific by stating that in euthanasia cases throughout, a doctor is always in a situation in which their patients natural instincts compel them (for as we saw in the quotes from J. Gay-Williams, a humans conditioned response in all situations-based on the make-up of the body-is to function in a way that would always enable (or lean towards) continuity. ) to survive. The way to show that this argument follows rule number two is to reveal its logical pattern. ) If there is P (a person in a situation), where Q (a natural instinct compels them to take an action), it is R (morally wrong to intentionally suppress that instinct). 2) In all S (euthanasia cases), there is P (a doctor in a situation), where Q (their patients natur al instinct compels them to survive). 3) Therefore, in all S (euthanasia cases), it is R (morally wrong for a doctor to intentionally suppress their patients natural instinct to survive). I think that this argument is good. The way in which Gay-Williams went about presenting his case was commendable.He did make brief reference to there being a God, and that human beings are supposed to act as trustee of his body, and in taking a life or our own, humans are acting against him. However, it seemed as though he was keeping in mind that many people might not share the same beliefs as he, and therefore needed to have rational arguments against euthanasia which pertained in no way to faith or religion. This was the admirable thing, because it seems that many times religious people, although trying to argue an important idea, seem to have no rational approach and end up Bible-thumping, and coming across as ignorant.One objection someone might have to this argument would be to premise two. S omeone might say that the premise is generalizing when it says all euthanasia cases, because in certain cases of euthanasia a person might not be being kept alive through natural means any longer (such as artificial life support) therefore, it cant be said that the persons natural instinct is to survive because without life support the person would have already died thus following the natural instinct towards death. My response to this objection would be the following in my interpretation of J.Gay-Williams argument from nature, I used In all euthanasia cases, there is a doctor is in a situation where their patients natural instinct compels them to survive. As my second premise. And I must admit, that with this as the second premise, the argument is flawed as the objector revealed. However, if I were to make the second premise not end with natural instinct compels them to survive and rather put natural instinct compels them then it wouldnt be a flawed argument. This is because it wo uld merely be adding a twist on the argument, which Gay-Williams did not come right out and say, but it is implied.This twist that is implied is that it is morally wrong to go against any natural human instinct, and this includes the natural instinct of dying. Maybe then, the problem of removing someone or not removing someone from life support would no longer be the problem, due to the fact that artificial life support is preventing some people from allowing their bodies to follow the natural instinct to die. Now of course this seems a bit morbid, and Im not at all suggesting that modern technology and what it can do to save lives is morally wrong, Im simply showing what other routes this argument from nature implies.