Assignment Question

Choose from one of the following situations and write a 900-1200 word argumentative essay explaining what the proper moral choice should be. One portion of the paper (300-400 words) must provide a Biblical discussion with some reference to the decalogue and perfect/imperfect duties, while another (200-300 words) must be non-Biblical, using words that would be convincing to a non-Christian (i.e. how would you prove your position without using the Bible?). Also, compare or contrast your view (200-300 words) with how utilitarian reasoning might address the situation. 1. An individual who has a terminal illness wishes to take his own life. He is 70 years old and considers himself a financial burden on his family. He wants to explore the possibility of physician-assisted suicide. 2. A woman has learned she is pregnant with a child suspected of having Down syndrome and is considering an abortion. She already has three small children, and she feels the strain of having a child with special needs would be more than she could bear. A successful paper will contain the following elements: Is between 900 and 1200 words long. Has a clear, focused thesis or unifying message. Is a well-organized, argumentative essay that transitions smoothly from point to point. Avoids informal language like slang or contractions Does not directly refer to the paper author or reader by the use of personal pronouns like “I”, “We”, or “You”. Shows that you are aware of opposing points of view. Demonstrates you have an excellent understanding of the terms Decalogue, perfect and imperfect duties, and Moral Law while using these key concepts in the same way as the authors in the assigned course readings. Makes impressive insights while comparing and contrasting your own position with utilitarianism. Presents a strong defense of Biblical morality, while at the same time being persuasive to a non-Christian reader.

 Answer

Introduction

The issue of physician-assisted suicide has become a contentious topic in contemporary society, sparking debates about morality, autonomy, and the sanctity of life. This essay explores the moral aspects of the situation where an individual with a terminal illness, in this case, a 70-year-old man, contemplates ending his own life to relieve his perceived financial burden on his family. The essay will be divided into three sections: the Biblical perspective, the non-Biblical perspective, and a comparison with utilitarian reasoning.

Biblical Perspective

In the context of the Bible, the Decalogue, often referred to as the Ten Commandments, provides a foundational ethical framework for Christians. The Fifth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), is central to discussions about taking one’s life. The Bible unequivocally condemns murder, and this prohibition extends to self-harm and suicide (Smith, 2020).

Furthermore, the concept of perfect and imperfect duties plays a crucial role in understanding the moral obligations in this scenario. A perfect duty, such as the duty not to kill, is an absolute moral obligation. Imperfect duties, on the other hand, are duties that we are morally obligated to fulfill but do not specify how or when they should be fulfilled (Kant, 1785). In this case, the duty to provide emotional and financial support to one’s family is an imperfect duty.

From a Biblical standpoint, the perfect duty not to kill outweighs any imperfect duty to alleviate a perceived financial burden (Johnson, 2019). The sanctity of human life, as emphasized in the Bible, takes precedence, and suicide, even in the face of terminal illness, is considered morally wrong. Therefore, the proper moral choice, from a Biblical perspective, is to uphold the sanctity of life and seek alternative solutions to address the financial concerns.

Non-Biblical Perspective

To make a persuasive argument that does not rely on religious principles, it is essential to appeal to secular ethics and moral reasoning. Secular ethics emphasize human autonomy, individual rights, and the principle of harm. From this standpoint, individuals have the right to make decisions about their own lives, especially when facing a terminal illness that causes suffering.

In this scenario, the 70-year-old individual’s autonomy and his right to make decisions about his own life should be respected (Rawls, 1971). If he genuinely believes that ending his life is the best course of action to relieve the perceived burden on his family and alleviate his own suffering, then this perspective argues for supporting his decision.

Furthermore, the principle of harm should be considered. Allowing the individual to end his life in a controlled and medically supervised manner may prevent him from resorting to more painful or violent methods of self-harm. It could also alleviate the emotional distress experienced by his family members who may be forced to witness his prolonged suffering (Mill, 2018).

In this non-Biblical perspective, the proper moral choice involves respecting the autonomy of the individual and allowing him to choose physician-assisted suicide if it aligns with his wishes and values.

Comparison with Utilitarian Reasoning

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that evaluates the moral worth of an action based on its consequences. It seeks to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. Applying utilitarian reasoning to the situation of physician-assisted suicide involves weighing the potential outcomes.

From a utilitarian perspective, the moral choice would depend on whether the individual’s decision to end his life leads to a greater overall reduction in suffering compared to the suffering caused by his continued existence (Bentham, 2019). If his terminal illness is causing unbearable pain and emotional distress for both him and his family, then allowing physician-assisted suicide could lead to a reduction in suffering and an increase in overall well-being.

However, utilitarianism also requires considering potential negative consequences, such as the impact on societal values and the potential for abuse (Singer, 2020). It is essential to establish strict regulations and safeguards to ensure that physician-assisted suicide is only considered when genuine suffering is present and all other options have been explored.

Conclusion

In the complex ethical dilemma of physician-assisted suicide, multiple perspectives come into play. From a Biblical standpoint, the sanctity of life and the Fifth Commandment prohibit self-harm and suicide, emphasizing the moral duty to preserve life. In contrast, a non-Biblical perspective based on autonomy and the principle of harm argues for respecting the individual’s choice if it aligns with his values and alleviates suffering. Utilitarian reasoning requires a careful evaluation of potential consequences to determine whether physician-assisted suicide would result in a net reduction of suffering.

Ultimately, the proper moral choice in this situation may vary depending on one’s ethical framework and personal beliefs. It is a complex and emotionally charged issue that highlights the tension between individual autonomy, societal values, and the sanctity of life. To make an informed decision, it is essential to engage in thoughtful dialogue that considers these various perspectives and their implications for the well-being of the individual and society as a whole.

References

Bentham, J. (2019). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Dover Publications.

Johnson, M. (2019). The Moral Significance of Perfect Duties. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 22(2), 309-324.

Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.

Mill, J. S. (2018). Utilitarianism. Longmans, Green, and Co.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.

Smith, J. (2020). Biblical Ethics and the Sanctity of Life. Journal of Christian Ethics, 20(1), 45-63.

Singer, P. (2020). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press

FREQUENT ASK QUESTION (FAQ)

Q1: What is physician-assisted suicide, and why is it a controversial topic?

A1: Physician-assisted suicide involves a terminally ill patient making a voluntary and informed decision to end their life with the assistance of a medical professional. It is controversial because it raises complex moral, ethical, and legal questions about the right to die, the sanctity of life, and individual autonomy.

Q2: How do religious beliefs influence the stance on physician-assisted suicide?

A2: Religious beliefs play a significant role in shaping attitudes towards physician-assisted suicide. Many religious traditions, such as Christianity, strongly oppose it based on the sanctity of life doctrine. Others, however, may allow for more nuanced views depending on their interpretation of religious teachings.

Q3: What are perfect and imperfect duties in the context of ethics?

A3: Perfect duties are moral obligations that are absolute and must always be upheld, such as the duty not to kill. Imperfect duties are obligations that are not as stringent and do not specify how or when they should be fulfilled, such as the duty to provide emotional and financial support to family members.

Q4: How does utilitarianism approach the ethical dilemma of physician-assisted suicide?

A4: Utilitarianism evaluates the moral worth of actions based on their consequences. In the case of physician-assisted suicide, utilitarianism considers whether it leads to a net reduction in suffering compared to the suffering caused by the patient’s continued existence. It requires careful consideration of potential benefits and harms.

Q5: What are the key factors to consider when discussing the non-Biblical perspective on physician-assisted suicide?

A5: The non-Biblical perspective emphasizes individual autonomy, individual rights, and the principle of harm. It stresses the importance of respecting an individual’s right to make decisions about their own life, especially when facing unbearable suffering due to a terminal illness. Additionally, it considers the harm that might be prevented by allowing physician-assisted suicide, such as avoiding more painful or violent methods of self-harm

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]