Does natural law justify euthanasia?

Question

If natural law is indeed above all religious laws, wouldn't it be convenient plus logical to argue in favor of euthanasia through the principles of natural law which is based on the tenets of common sense, justice and basic human rights? That does away with all religious arguments against??

Answer 1

Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Just because that's the way things are in nature doesn't mean its the best for our society.

Answer 2

I find it curious how many people would claim that natural laws do not guide the course of human actions. It is not, after all, by accident that computers run on electricity instead of ice cream - scientists and engineers think that electricity works much better to produce the desired outcome.

In the same way, you might collect doctors and biologists to try and determine whether it is best to kill a particular person or not. And I even think it would be quite possible to produce an answer that produces the best possible outcome for the species as a whole and probably the individuals involved as well.

But I think that even if you did have this answer produced by experts, the question would not be entirely resolved.

The reason is simple: a human is not a computer. Human lives are of fantastic value to most people. This makes errors of judgement likely to be far more costly.

Nor is science, no matter how much explanatory power it develops, likely to be able to explain EVERYTHING. There will always be gaps (probably huge ones) for religion to operate in, even if you completely suborn religion to science (something many are not willing to do). And since there will always be room for religion and religion arguably produces some benefits even without any kind of supernatural entity, you are probably always going to have religion around and influencing outcomes. Particularly in such high-stakes decisions as the one above.

So yes, a scientific answer about benefits does put a different spin on the question, but no, it will NEVER be the ONLY spin. Nor, perhaps, should it ever be.

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Does natural law justify euthanasia?
If natural law is indeed above all religious laws, wouldn't it be convenient plus logical to argue in favor of euthanasia through the principles of natural law which is based on the tenets of common sense, justice and basic human rights? That does away with all religious arguments against??

Answer 4

Many, would argue, on the basis of natural law itself, against the practices of assisted suicide or "euthanasia. It would not be a clear reference point to adjudicate this issue. Further, most conceptions of natural law have as their ultimate and fundamental basis some kind of concept of a Creator and a teleology to existence, concepts that many secularist and materialist readings of ethics reject from the start. As such appeals to "common sense, justice and basic human rights" and even the natural law itself, are also emptied of significance and meaning. The appeal that justifies these practices is usually the primacy of self-determination, an absolute sense of freedom, and the priority of an individual's will over that of any other authority. I would recommend Alasdair McIntyre's "Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry" as providing some solid insights into why this issue, and many others, have become so difficult to adjudicate in modern culture.

Answer 5

Natural laws describe what happens in nature better than religious theories, but contrary to religious theories they do not prescribe how humans should act and they don't justify any human action. Human actions are justified only by human laws and human logic. Common sense, justice and basic human rights, which I agree can all be used to justify euthanasia, are not natural laws. There is nothing in nature that tells us humans have rights, it is a creation of the human mind and not less respectable for that.

Answer 6

I'm not sure Justice really comes into it. The way I see it, my life belongs to ME. If I chose to end it, I have every right to. Wheather it's a good idea or not is beside the point. (It's rarely a good idea!) If I were ill, in pain, and unable to look after myself properly, I would have no qualms about ending my own suffering and letting my family off from looking after me. I think the second reason worries a lot of people. We don't ever like to think of family being a "burden", so the law tries to ensure that a) Family doesn't put pressure on someone to end their life.. and b) The person doesn't feel like a burden to anyone, because they deserve life as much as anyone no matter how helpless. BUT....if I ended my life, it wouldn't be because I was getting in everyone's way...(I'd be a demanding patient If I were very ill!)...it would simply be because my body should NEVER be my prison. I am also a happy, healthy person. I have no plans to end my life. If I do, It's my right to do so.

Answer 7

Natural law would not, to me, support euthanasia but would support a person's right to refuse medical treatment and to die naturally. This does often happen anyway but can involve a great deal of pain and suffering before death occurs.

I can see both sides of the coin in the argument for euthanasia and I liken it to the laws for "soft" drugs. Many people will use them anyway (and many people will opt for euthanasia) so, to prevent abuse of the system, surely it would be better to legalise the whole process and bring it under proper control ?

Answer 8

try this with some experts rather than trusting a stranger here.. you need academically valid references and sources for this...you can not quote a stranger in your paper.... there are so many online sites like fastcustomessays com where you can find a good writer for this. Hope this works!

Answer 9

the 'laws of nature' are not moral laws or legal laws, they are descriptive approximations of how things happen. as such, they cannot be used to justify anything whatsoever. they have no moral import at all. 'ought' does not follow from 'is'.

Answer 10

Nope. God is the author of nature and therefore his law supercedes any other law. Not to mention this vague "natural law" is completely open and could be anything you want it to be.