With respect to at least three of the normative ethical movements studied,

outline your views on euthanasia.

When debating whether euthanasia, which is the deliberate killing of a person to relieve
them of their suffering, is right or wrong the answer largely depends on each individuals
code of ethics and morals. However different normative ethical paths, such as Virtue
Ethics, Consequentialism, or Kantian ethics, may affect a persons views on whether or
not euthanasia should be legal, or should even be considered as morally acceptable.
Throughout the world euthanasia has often been a precarious subject in regards to
ethical morality, even today attitudes to euthanasia in the UK are mixed. However many
argue that euthanasia provides a patient with autonomous will that they would otherwise
not have, as they can then desire to retain their dignity and as much control over
their lives as possible during this phase and many often criticise the illegality of
this, arguing that not practising euthanasia violates human rights, as it increases
suffering for the patients, interferes with a doctors Hippocratic oath, in regards to the
vow of providing the patient with a peaceful death and relieving their suffering.
As euthanasia is a very intricate subject, it has been split into two separate types. The
first is voluntary euthanasia in which the terminally ill patient requests to die. The second
is involuntary euthanasia in which the patient is euthanized without requesting it with
permission from a family member.
When considering normative ethical theoretical responses to Euthanasia, one must first
acknowledge the fact that normative ethics provides guidelines for the moral correctness
of actions. However when applying these theories to complex real life issues, the fine line
between what is right and wrong may become blurred or self-contradictory.
Initially, Virtue ethics seems to be a flexible theory, as it relies on the notion that we
should not solely focus on what is right and wrong, but should instead aim to developing
personal character traits, or virtues resulting in balanced, just thinking.
Aristotle believed we should aim for eudemonia, which is the flourishing of deep personal
happiness in our lives rather than a shallow political and emotional happiness.
Eudemonia would not only provide a person with a sense of intrinsic worth, but it would
also contribute the flourishing of society. However this immediately may be a problem for
a follower of Virtue ethics who is considering euthanasia, as eudemonia is the
achievement of happiness in life, therefore the idea of ending life to achieve happiness in
life seems contradictory and absurd.
Aristotle believed there were four cardinal virtues in which a person should attempt to
achieve, temperance, justice, courage, and prudence. Aristotle also proposed the
doctrine of the mean, to provide a more concise target of virtues we should aim for and
vices we should avoid. For example a vice is foolhardiness, a virtue is courage, and a
deficiency would be cowardice. However these virtues immediately propose a problem
for those considering euthanasia, as some may argue that euthanasia is not courageous,
and is nothing more than a violation of the sanctity of life and a cause of pain and
suffering for all persons involved. However some may view the patient as courageous for
agreeing to euthanasia, and facing death on their own terms. Milan Kundera writes
Dogs do not have many advantages over people, but one of them is extremely
important: euthanasia is not forbidden by law in their case; animals have the
right to a merciful death Therefore making the question of what is the right course of
action subject to interpretation. Aristotle also stressed the importance of actions
affecting society. He believed that by practicing the virtues, society would in turn become
more moral and virtuous. Many may argue that virtue ethics provides a patient with a
chance to better society along with being euthanized as it portrays strength of the
individual and relieves the suffering of grieving family member and friends. Legal
euthanasia may also benefit society financially, as less money will be spent on drugs and
technological equipment, therefore helping others in society and the money could be
used to benefit others. However alternately some religious leaders argue that Assisted
suicide and euthanasia will radically change the social air we all breathe by severely
undermining respect for life

Deontological ethical views on euthanasia such as Kantian ethics differ from virtue ethics
as it focuses solely with the means to the end of the action, making this theory much
more rigid in comparison to virtue ethics. Kants categorical imperatives are the centre of
his philosophical concept, and they are a three part absolute basis for moral rationality.
To begin, Kant first stresses the importance of acting as if every action would become a
universal law, for example stealing, if the act of stealing became a universal law, society
would crumble. In application to euthanasia, views on the morality of the act are largely a
result of how the individuals view it. Whereas some may argue that voluntary euthanasia
should always be viewed as murder, which would make the application of this into a
universal law absurd. This is because it would lead to human extinction which directly
contradicts Kants Laws of Nature. Alternatively some Christians and others may argue
that it is in fact applicable, as elements of murder in the bible include Malicious Intent
and is Contrary to the desire of the victim. Another maxim in the categorical
imperative is "Act in such a way that you treat humanityas an end and never
merely as a means to an end." This means that a person must be treated as an
individual as they have intrinsic worth, and not just instrumental value, only man, and,
with him every rational creature is an end in itself. However in regards to
euthanasia, some may argue that the doctor is being used as a means to an end, as they
are being used as a means to kill another, therefore going against Kantian ethics.
Although when considering Kants views on autonomy, which he defined of control over
ones self and actions, the denying of euthanasia would be seen as barbaric and a denial
of basic human rights.

A form of consequentialism known as Utilitarianism opposes deontological ethics such as

Kantian ethics, and instead focuses on morality as a result of actions rather than in
actions, and therefore the action with the best outcome is the most good. Utilitarianism
also stresses the importance of overall utility and is centred around The greatest good
for the greatest number.
There are two types of utilitarianism, Act, which is the is the belief that a persons act is
morally right is the best possible outcome of the situation is reached in regards to
happiness, and Rule, which argues that right actions depend on the amount of good after
actions.
Philosophers such as Bentham believed that human life was largely dictated around the
avoidance of pain and the maximizing of pleasure, and associated good with pleasure.
Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters,
pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as
well as to determine what we shall do (Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the
Principles of Morals and Legislation, Ch. 1). Although later philosophers such as Mill
disagreed with this and placed distinctions what he called, higher and lower pleasures.
In application to euthanasia, views are largely mixed.
In her article It is monstrously wrong that patients cannot ask for euthanasia Soran
Reader writes In all that mind-blowing horror, though, the possibility that really
threatens to break me is that I may be unable to remember my children and
further criticises the UKs laws on euthanasia. As an Act utilitarian Bentham may have
argued that, due the pain Reader and her children would face, and even the medical
staff, that euthanasia may bring the most happiness for both the patient and the family
and friends, as they do not have to witness any unnecessary suffering or witness any
further deterioration of self. Involuntary euthanasia can also be argued to be acceptable
when arguing from a utilitarian viewpoint, as the happiness depends on those making the
decision as a whole rather just the individual being euthanasia, and the argument of
whether the family or medical staff making the decision is morally correct in the action is
irrelevant.

referencing

1)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/
2)
. Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/asstdyingbill_1.shtml
4)
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/19/19-1/19-1-pp015-024_JETS.pdf
5)
the noble descent of duty Immanuel kant from peter singer ethics book.