Author Archives: jamesa

Do terminally ill patients have the right voluntary euthanasia? My answer is yes, since utilitarian actions look to maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number and to minimize pain. The highest principle we should adhere to when examining voluntary euthanasia is the Greatness Happiness Principle. The Greatest Happiness Principle, which I have stated in my work Utilitarianism, says actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Additionally in government and in good behavior we want to multiple happiness. The multiplication of happiness is, according to the utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue. Voluntary euthanasia is justifiable when the action leads to the happiness of the individual and society.

Let us look at the issue of euthanasia being admissible in a utilitarian framework.

First let us define voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is defined as “the practice of ending a life in a painless manner.”(wiki). Next let me distinguish between passive and active euthanasia. Passive euthanasia is expediting the death of an individual by some alternative and letting nature take its course. The alternative could include turning off respirators, stopping medications, or withdrawing food and water. Active euthanasia is the direct cause of ending a life. The cause of death could be done by medication or lethal injections. For this argument I will primarily focus on active euthanasia.

Euthanasia will increase happiness and decrease pain at the same time. In active euthanasia the doctor takes an action that will cause the patient’s death. Not only is the result painless but the action itself is as well. Active euthanasia is quicker and less painful for the patient then passive. Though I do believe the result of the action should be the deciding factor in determining its justification not the action itself. The patient (who has already given consent) who has been suffering from a terminal illness is now happy to be free from the pain. By the doctor actively causing the death instead of passively watching, the result promotes utility. The result promotes utility and therefore happiness by eliminating the pain from the patient, their family, and society.

Many argue that the intentional cause of death is immoral. I argue, however, that virtues like life and liberty are desirable as means rather than ends, and that the test for determining whether a result is acceptable is the aggregated level of happiness in society. The family now has closure and can go back to their daily work lives, which promotes the happiness of society. Furthermore if a patient’s illness impacted their ability to work then their utility has ended. The patient can no longer contribute to the overall happiness to society. By keeping a terminally ill patient alive the money going towards maintaining their life is wasted. That money could be redirected towards infrastructure or research for a cure. The money going towards research could lead to a cure for a terminally ill disease. That cure would lead to the overall happiness for society. The utility of active voluntary euthanasia concerning the terminally ill allows for money to be invested elsewhere. Accumulated wealth allows for investing into research that could lead to a cure for a terminal illness. The cure for an illness leads to the greatness happiness because future patients can no longer succumb to the disease. Their potential is no longer limited and can once again contribute to society.

Do states and nations have the right to torture if a threat is imminent and the individual in custody may be holding crucial information needed to stop the attack? My answer is yes, since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. There are two principles we should adhere to while examining the privilege to torment if we are endeavoring to maximize utility. First, the Greatest Happiness Principle, which I have stated in my work Utilitarianism as right actions are those which produce the greatest amount of happiness (or prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness) for all sentient creatures, where by happiness means the presence of pleasure or the absence of pain. The second is the Harm Principal, which states the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. Torture is justifiable when the action leads to the saving of countless lives and therefore their happiness.

Let us look at the issue of torture being admissible in a utilitarian framework.

What do we mean by torture is the first question to answer. According to the United Nations Convention, torture is defined as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession”. Now let me present a thought experiment named the “ticking time bomb scenario”. In this thought experiment the individual has information of imminent terrorist attack that will harm millions of people and the information will only be given up if they are tortured. Should the individual be tortured? If we are able to extract the information then millions of lives will be saved but pain will be caused upon this individual. Many argue that the use of torture violates an individual’s rights and torture is an ineffective technique. I argue, however, that doing so would violate the principle of maximizing utility. In other words the promotion of overall human happiness would be impacted. I believe the result of the action should be the deciding factor in determining its justification.

Even if torture leads to the absence of pleasure and presence of pain the discomfort is justifiable. The happiness of the many outweighs the happiness of the individual. I will, however, make the case of rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism states it has a set of rules that should be followed but also allows for exceptions. If the result cannot be linked backed to torture then the use of torture becomes invalid. Additionally there can be multiple outcomes not foreseen. Even if these happened to be true, the non-use of torture is only justifiable if the majority of society benefits from the non-action. Many oppose torture on utilitarian grounds, saying it is ineffective. The individual being tortured might provide false information because under torture the individual might say anything to stop to the pain. The false information could lead to a worst outcome. Moreover the happiness of the individual has been violated for no reason and you end with the opposite of utility’s purpose. I believe this account shows the distinction between rule and act utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism torture is acceptable in certain circumstances when maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness. In rule utilitarianism the respect for an individual’s rights can be the exception to the rule.

Information and a confession are crucial in an imminent threat situation. Being able to save countless lives maximizes a society’s potential. Individuals will be able to utilize their set of skills to the fullest extent for the benefit of society. If a serious injury impacted an individual’s ability to work then their utility has ended. The worst outcome ends with their potential being limited or skills wasted completely. That would not promote the overall net happiness of society. The loss of teachers, doctors, and parents would impact the overall happiness of society.

http://www.apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/