Rachels And Williams Arguments Against Euthanasia
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic that is spreading throughout the world. Euthanasia has two different forms which are Passive and Active. It is not only controversial weather it should be legal a whole but also controversial if both forms of euthanasia should be legal. Rachels and Williams are two philosophers who give their unique input on what is right and wrong. Williams disagrees with euthanasia while Rachels urges for doctors to agree with euthanasia. For me personally I feel that Euthanasia should be a freedom any rational or previously rational human being should have. There are two types of euthanasia and they are active and passive. Active euthanasia is when a doctor gives a lethal injection or gives the patient medicine
…show more content…
Williams starts off the writing with the statement, “Although I respect the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe the conclusion is wrong. I want to show that euthanasia is wrong” (WEB). This shows that she is understanding of the view that it is right but feels that euthanasia is still wrong. The first augment is the argument of Nature which is stated, “Euthanasia does violence to this natural goal of survival. It is literally acting against nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily survival.” (WEB). This argument basically states that it is natural for a human to fight to live no matter what and when you provide an out for human it is unjust because it isn’t the way nature had intended it to be. The second point that is made is the argument for self-interest which is stated as, “We may think that we have no hope of recovery when, as a matter of fact, our chances are quite good. In such circumstances, if euthanasia were permitted, we would die needlessly.” (WEB). Basically this argument states that miracles do happen and if we allow doctors to end someone’s life it gives them no chance for the miracle. The last argument is the argument of practical effects which is described as, “It could have a
Williams starts off the writing with the statement, “Although I respect the compassion that leads to this conclusion, I believe the conclusion is wrong. I want to show that euthanasia is wrong” (WEB). This shows that she is understanding of the view that it is right but feels that euthanasia is still wrong. The first augment is the argument of Nature which is stated, “Euthanasia does violence to this natural goal of survival. It is literally acting against nature because all the processes of nature are bent towards the end of bodily survival.” (WEB). This argument basically states that it is natural for a human to fight to live no matter what and when you provide an out for human it is unjust because it isn’t the way nature had intended it to be. The second point that is made is the argument for self-interest which is stated as, “We may think that we have no hope of recovery when, as a matter of fact, our chances are quite good. In such circumstances, if euthanasia were permitted, we would die needlessly.” (WEB). Basically this argument states that miracles do happen and if we allow doctors to end someone’s life it gives them no chance for the miracle. The last argument is the argument of practical effects which is described as, “It could have a