Applying Aristotle's Virtue Theory To Euthanasia
Virtue Theory as applied to Euthenasia
Many people see humans as having an inherent purpose on this planet. That we are all significant individuals part of a larger system. Within this concept, several philosophers have tried to determine HOW we should act, and which decisions we SHOULD make. According to Utilitarianism and Kantianism there are guidelines and rules we should follow in order to make a morally correct decision. Virtue Theory goes a little further than that, while still remaining quite ambiguous, by saying that the development of somebody’s virtues is all that’s important. These virtues will in turn give you the correct motives for the correct decisions. Virtue Theory considers and works around the individuality of …show more content…
As defined by the New Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is ‘the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma’. The word itself is made up of two Greek words, ‘eu’ a prefix meaning ‘good’ and ‘thanatos’ meaning ‘death’. So in the language of the ancient Greeks, when somebody undergoes euthanasia, their death is good. Not good in the sense that somebody is getting personal gratification because you no longer walk the face of the earth, more in the sense that the patient followed the ‘right’ path, the most painless …show more content…
In this case, somebody could perceive euthanasia as a courageous act to assist somebody you love. Whether it is to relieve pain or end a history with an incurable disease, essentially our inherent virtues will help us chose the right decision to help a friend in a very dire situation. The right decision in this case would be to grant the final wish of a patient pleading to end months of suffering and hardship. I think that one issue many people have with euthanasia is that in certain circumstances, involved family members could be trying to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain. Whether they want to euthanize the relative because they wish to be freed of the burden or because they want to get their money, in both instances those persons’ actions are defined by the vices that influence their actions. Greed, rashness and selfishness are all vices that will inhibit an individual’s ability to make clear headed morally correct decisions. In one of his books, Aristotle refers to these invirtuous people as having a distinctly distorted moral vision. Because they lack the proper virtues to guide them in decision-making, the invirtuous could actually end up harming themselves as well as other people. So really any situation in which somebody is prematurely or unjustly euthanized would be immoral because it is an action influenced by someone’s vices. This action does not follow the virtues of happiness or courage, but
Many people see humans as having an inherent purpose on this planet. That we are all significant individuals part of a larger system. Within this concept, several philosophers have tried to determine HOW we should act, and which decisions we SHOULD make. According to Utilitarianism and Kantianism there are guidelines and rules we should follow in order to make a morally correct decision. Virtue Theory goes a little further than that, while still remaining quite ambiguous, by saying that the development of somebody’s virtues is all that’s important. These virtues will in turn give you the correct motives for the correct decisions. Virtue Theory considers and works around the individuality of …show more content…
As defined by the New Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is ‘the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma’. The word itself is made up of two Greek words, ‘eu’ a prefix meaning ‘good’ and ‘thanatos’ meaning ‘death’. So in the language of the ancient Greeks, when somebody undergoes euthanasia, their death is good. Not good in the sense that somebody is getting personal gratification because you no longer walk the face of the earth, more in the sense that the patient followed the ‘right’ path, the most painless …show more content…
In this case, somebody could perceive euthanasia as a courageous act to assist somebody you love. Whether it is to relieve pain or end a history with an incurable disease, essentially our inherent virtues will help us chose the right decision to help a friend in a very dire situation. The right decision in this case would be to grant the final wish of a patient pleading to end months of suffering and hardship. I think that one issue many people have with euthanasia is that in certain circumstances, involved family members could be trying to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain. Whether they want to euthanize the relative because they wish to be freed of the burden or because they want to get their money, in both instances those persons’ actions are defined by the vices that influence their actions. Greed, rashness and selfishness are all vices that will inhibit an individual’s ability to make clear headed morally correct decisions. In one of his books, Aristotle refers to these invirtuous people as having a distinctly distorted moral vision. Because they lack the proper virtues to guide them in decision-making, the invirtuous could actually end up harming themselves as well as other people. So really any situation in which somebody is prematurely or unjustly euthanized would be immoral because it is an action influenced by someone’s vices. This action does not follow the virtues of happiness or courage, but