How did the
second contemporary issue effect your principles? Are you better able to see
areas where your principles need adjusting? What adjustments need to be made?
Which philosopher's position was least consistent with your own principles and
why?
The second
contemporary issue we dealt with was Euthanasia. The issue of euthanasia has
something I have always been a little unsure about, but after recent
discussion, I found that this practice would only be useful to society. I
believe that euthanasia is a form of human choice and I believe that people
should have the ability to decide to end their live. Only if the person is
being terminally or irreversibly ill.
The issue of euthanasia doesn't affect my principles but if I had to
choose a philosopher that was least consistent with my principles it would be
J.Gay Williams. I do see where he is coming from, with his belief that
euthanasia “goes against natural law because it violates the natural inclination
to preserve life” but i do not necessarily agree with it. I feel like with his
position, there is a significant extent to which his point can be taken. If we
sustain life for as long as, let’s say a family wishes to continue a relatives
life for many years, we will eventually have all funds towards life support for
individuals who have no expectation to recover.
No comments:
Post a Comment