Ethics

Philo 171
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 MARCELO Questions for the Third Exam

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
jimenez



Posts : 70
Join date : 2008-11-25

PostSubject: MARCELO Questions for the Third Exam   Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:28 pm

Marcelo
Marcelo:
1. In those cases where Jack Kevorkian performed assisted euthanasia on patients confirmed to be terminally ill and who were fully autonomous in seeking euthanasia, was Jack Kevorkian's action morally excusable? Why or why not.

2. Why is “freedom” (or the idea that we are free) a fundamental requirement in/for morality? Do you see any “parallelism” between Kantian ethics and Existentialism with regards to the conception of freedom in each? Why or why not? What are the similarities or the differences?

3. After careful considerations of the various ethical theories/views we discussed, what “personal moral system or code” can you come up with and which you can adopt? Be sure to talk about the values, precepts/ideas, and other elements that should comprise this “personal moral system or code”. Include your conception of freedom and accountability in this given moral system and your view of what it means to be a moral individual.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
marcelo.hinang



Posts : 3
Join date : 2008-11-24

PostSubject: Re: MARCELO Questions for the Third Exam   Mon Mar 30, 2009 9:33 pm

1. In those cases where Jack Kevorkian performed assisted euthanasia on patients confirmed to be terminally ill and who were fully autonomous in seeking euthanasia, was Jack Kevorkian's action morally excusable? Why or why not.
Basically, Jack Kevorkian was known as “Doctor Death” whereas, he claimed that he assisted euthanasia to 130 patients to that end. Indeed, the pseudonym of Kevorkian was referred to him for the reasons that he was responsible for doing and campaigning the process of conducting physician-assisted suicide or commonly known as euthanasia. He also established the idea that “Dying is not a Crime,” that performing euthanasia was due to its sole purpose of assisting those who wanted to die, those who are considered to be rational and still capable of deliberation about their personal choices in this case their choices of having their lives ended without suffering was the primary reason on why “Doctor Death” championed euthanasia.
In the light of determining whether the actions of Kevorkian was morally excusable or not, it is deemed necessary that we look into the arguments of both the actors, pertaining to the performer of euthanasia and the one who was directly the subject of the performer which is the ill patient. Also, it is necessary to examine the real essence of the term euthanasia in order to fully grasp the meaning this controversial acts.
First and foremost, let’s establish first the real meaning of the word euthanasia, according to the new world encyclopedia, the term euthanasia has been used for several meaning such as literally "good death," any peaceful death, using an injection to kill a pet when it becomes homeless, old, sick, or feeble, the Nazi euphemism for Hitler's efforts to remove certain groups from the gene pool, particularly homosexuals, Jews, gypsies, and mentally handicapped people, killing a patient at the request of the family. The patient is brain dead, comatose, or otherwise incapable of letting it be known if he or she would prefer to live or die, mercy killing, Physician-assisted suicide and killing a terminally ill person at his request. However, it is being diagnosed that coining euthanasia in all these senses are said to offer conflicting results that shall hinder the real essence of it. Consequently, one can deduce the real meaning of euthanasia when one is adopting the senses that euthanasia solely refers to killing a terminally ill person at his request by means of physician-assisted suicide.
Looking back on the arguments set by the actors, it is clear that the propositions was that pathologist Jack Kevorkian acts of performing assisted euthanasia was morally excusable since he perform it on the ground that the patients being treated were confirmed that have incurable and fatal illness whose personal choices were that of looking forward to euthanasia as a mean to end their suffering. From these, I could say that again it is morally acceptable for the reasons that the highlights were supported by the principles of bioethics, the principle of respect for persons, in this case the conditions of terminally-ill patients who seek euthanasia as performed by Kevorkian. It is stated that the patients were clearly not being influenced by Kevorkian to undergo euthanasia and end their lives, that they chose to be treated by euthanasia in their personal will of choice, thus, should be treated with respect in order to gain the right to self- determination and that those patients are confirmed to have incurable disease thus they do not have any chance of survival. In other sense, the scenes played by Kevorkian was excusable in terms of it being moral if and only if he does not coerced them to undergo such assisted euthanasia, the thing that surely affects the decisions of the patients which in this case he did nothing in influencing their choices, thus, if he respects the autonomy of the terminally-ill patients would be a fair and clear ground to say that Kevorkian actions were morally excusable.

2. Why is “freedom” (or the idea that we are free) a fundamental requirement in/for morality? Do you see any “parallelism” between Kantian ethics and Existentialism with regards to the conception of freedom in each? Why or why not? What are the similarities or the differences?
Indeed, the goal of morality is to lessen the amount of evil or harm suffered by mankind. It is to promote goodness for the welfare of the humanity. Accordingly, the notion of freedom was very significant in the course of looking to it as a prerequisite for morality in a sense that this freedom serves as a guide for humanity to use for the sole purpose on how to address or react to stimuli found in the physical world. Apparently, we said that we are condemned to be free because we are responsible for what we choose to be. Also, we do not have access to everything present in our surrounding, or we do not have direct control on our environment, however, we are said to have our freedom on how to deal with these things that we don’t have control of. In the light of this freedom we possessed, we are still responsible for whatever the results of our actions that we chose basing from what we believe in. In relation to freedom as a requirement in morality, perhaps, I could say that every individual have their own choices on how to interact with the unbound forces of the world that tends to produce the aftermath of producing something that shall be beneficence to the interest of mankind. Despite of varying beliefs, thus, differing views on how to create choices for the benefit of goodness to everyone, we are still bound to the fact that we know what is good for the welfare of everybody, ergo, we must choose in a manner that shall eradicate the maleficence to anyone by sticking to practices that are guided by the fact that whatever we choose to do let us put ourselves to the shoes of those individuals who are directly affected by our actions and see to it if we like those aftermath of our actions then we proceed in doing so, yet, if tend to see that it shall create harm for us then we refrain our actions from propagating.
Meanwhile, in the context of freedom the connection between Kantian ethics and Existentialism clearly portray the idea that the two disciplines recognizes in the same manner that individuals are likely autonomous and free. Apparently, Existentialism clearly depicts that once an individual recognized that he/she is free, then he/she accepts the responsibility, thus, making him/her accountable to his/her actions.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
marcelo.hinang



Posts : 3
Join date : 2008-11-24

PostSubject: Re: MARCELO Questions for the Third Exam   Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:07 pm

3. After careful considerations of the various ethical theories/views we discussed, what “personal moral system or code” can you come up with and which you can adopt? Be sure to talk about the values, precepts/ideas, and other elements that should comprise this “personal moral system or code”. Include your conception of freedom and accountability in this given moral system and your view of what it means to be a moral individual.
In the light of crafting what kind of personal moral code I could adopt to, I could say that I will derive my personal system to the concepts provided on Existentialism, whereas, incorporating other personal themes into my system guide that shall include the conception of accountability and freedom.
I shall say that if we look at ourselves and find out that we are miserable and we are being limited by the circumstances we are caught into then we do not have anyone to blame. It is us, who are to blame. Apparently, we are the ‘novelist of our lives,” we are the one composing what are we going to be, due to our choices basing from our personal beliefs. If we are being influenced by others or by any means circumstances then it turned out that we are doomed, thus, it is solely us who are to blame because we let them or these circumstances influenced us in the first place, so we are living in bad faith.
Apparently, I should say even if I am free to choose whatever personal decisions in my life then I should see to it that I would be accountable to it whatever happens. Fundamentally, I must look on the side of other beings when performing such actions, particularly, to those who are close to me and directly affected of my actions, my family and my loved ones. These must be my driving force to follow in order to create fruitful acts that shall be beneficence to everyone connected to me and perhaps even for others.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: MARCELO Questions for the Third Exam   

Back to top Go down
 
MARCELO Questions for the Third Exam
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Exam Questions gone Wrong
» mark 3 questions
» Horus Questions
» Newbie Questions
» You have questions, we try to have answers

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Ethics :: Philo 171 A :: Third EXAM-
Jump to: