i need a response to this post
Kristina Best posted Jul 3, 2024 4:57 PM
Thesis Statement: Velleman argues that euthanasia is morally impermissible based on deontological principles.
In his article “A Right of Self-Termination?” J. David Velleman presents the argument that euthanasia is morally impermissible based on deontological principles. Velleman believes that the act of intentionally ending a human life, even at the request of the individual, goes against the inherent value and dignity of human life. He argues that human life has intrinsic worth and should not be treated as a means to an end, even if it is to end suffering.
Velleman supports his position by emphasizing the importance of respecting the sanctity of life. From a deontological perspective, he believes that some moral duties and principles must be followed, regardless of the consequences. Velleman argues that intentionally ending a human life, even to alleviate suffering, violates the Kantian principle that treats individuals as ends in themselves, rather than as mere means to an end.
Furthermore, Velleman raises concerns about the potential for abuse and slippery slope arguments if euthanasia were to be legalized. He argues that allowing euthanasia could lead to a devaluation of human life and open the door to non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Velleman believes that the risks of legalizing euthanasia outweigh any potential benefits, as it could erode the moral fabric of society and undermine respect for human life.
Regarding Velleman’s conclusion, I find myself in agreement with his argument against euthanasia from a deontological perspective. I believe that human life has intrinsic value and dignity that should be respected and protected. Intentionally ending a human life, even in cases of terminal illness and suffering, raises ethical concerns about the sanctity of life and the potential for abuse. As such, I agree with Velleman’s assertion that euthanasia is morally impermissible based on deontological principles.
