The Existence of God
For centuries, the idea of God has been a part of man's history. Past and present, there has always been a different integration consisting of the believers and the non-believers of God. The group of those who have "faith" in God tend to be related to one religion or another. On the other hand, the skeptics find the existence of God somewhat puzzling and try to seek the answers through scientific methods. Even as of today with all the modern technologies and the development of sciences, we still do not have a definitive answer to the question "does God exist?"
Among many philosophers and scholars who have tried to answer this question, we shall look upon Rene Descartes' theory on the existence of God. In terms of believers and non-believers, Descartes would be one of the believers. Before we go any further, we must ponder upon several questions. What is God? Does God exist? If such God does exist, then where does this being come from? Why do believers and non-believers hold on to their beliefs as they do? What significance does the existence of God have upon mankind? These are only the tip of the iceberg amongst the vast array of unanswered questions related to God.
Though there are so many uncertainties as we have just mentioned, the existence of all other uncertainties in our world may explain why the existence of God is so real to many people. For the believers, God provides a convenient answer to all these questions except for the answers regarding God itself. The following are some of the general arguments for the existence of God.
The first argument comes from the theory of design; there are orders in the universe which can't be occurring by mere chance. Secondly, the existence of God explains the arguments regarding the efficient causality; as the world exhibits orderly causal sequences, something had to start it all up. Thirdly but not the least, God provides an answer to the question of the origin of life and its destination after death. ( For the sake of convenience, we shall borrow some theological ideas from Christianity, the Christian God, to exemplify our comparisons.) As an example, God is the creator of all, and there is a place in heaven, a kingdom of God, for those who have faith in God. This helps believers understand their identity and alleviate the fear of death.
Now then, let us look upon how Descartes responds to the question of what God is? Descartes' hypothesis on his theory starts with the idea of a God who is eternal, infinite, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, and perfect. In his earlier Meditations, he claims that God may be a deceiver; he, however, concludes later that God is a non-deceiver because an act of deceit would be an attribute of moral imperfection. According to Descartes, this idea of a supremely intelligent and supremely powerful being, who created everything that exists, can not and does not come from within him who is imperfect. Moreover, this perception did not originate from the experiences of the world, nor was this drawn from the senses. Rather, he believes that this perception of God is prior to his own perception, and it could only actually arise from a perfect being. Thus Descartes concludes the only remaining option to be that this perception was innate in him.
If we assume that God is perfect, then we may wonder why human beings, a creation of God, are created imperfect and liable to make mistakes? Since an imperfect creation was made by God, doesn't this mean that he is imperfect? Yet, Descartes claims that God gave humans no faculty for making mistakes, and we are constituted as a mediator between God and nothingness. The reasoning behind the justifications made by Descartes is related to "free will." Descartes states that the faculty of judgement is not infinite in human beings; human error is not dependent upon God but is rather a mere defect. On the other hand, free will is a freedom to choose which is infinite. Furthermore, he implies that the fact that the boundaries of will extending further than the finite intellect is the very source of human error.
From this discussion, it is clear that humans do have the capacity to err. Even if we considered that the above statements were true, couldn't we make an argument about why God has created such imbalance between the magnitudes of the will and the intellect? Then this imbalance can be accounted as a defect no matter what the justification may be; moreover, this implies that God did indeed make a mistake by creating a being that has faculties that lack perfection. From this we can derive at the possibility that God may be imperfect, and this is a contradiction to Descartes' argument of God as a perfect being.
In the " Meditation Five," Descartes attempts to prove his hypothesis of the existence of God based on the theory of clarity and distinctness of perception. He begins this theory by mentioning that ideas of certain things which are outside of him have their own truth and natures. These ideas were not fabricated by him, and they have not entered him through the sense experience. Since he knows these ideas clearly, he claims that they are something and are true. Descartes states that those that he can clearly and distinctly perceive are the only things that fully convince him as being true. From this concept, he constructs a logic which supposedly proves his hypothesis; the clear and distinct perception of the undoubted existence of God means that existence is inseparable from God.
From this assumption, Descartes jumps to the conclusion that God does indeed exist; however, can this be considered as a legitimate reasoning and be accepted as a proof beyond reasonable doubt? Must everything that Descartes perceives be true as long as it is clear and distinct? Isn't he revolving in a loop of circular reasoning by assuming as true the very point that he is trying to prove? Let us ponder upon what Descartes has said before for the sake of argument. In "Meditation Four," he clearly states that " the will extends further than the intellect " (p85.) He also stated that the faculty of choosing, his will, is finite. If this is so, then the faculty of knowing the truth, his intellect, must be also be finite. Furthermore, Descartes himself acknowledges the fact that he is not perfect. From these premises, I believe that we have the grounds to speculate that the perceptions based on his finite faculties of knowledge hold the potential of having mistakes.
In the above discussion, I was trying neither to prove nor disprove the existence of God; I was, however, trying to offer some skepticism upon statements which many people have claimed about the existence of God. Although Descartes embraces quite a grand statement on the issues of God, I felt that his beliefs were biased towards his own perception and lacked evidence in proving that God exists to the point beyond reasonable doubt.
I believe that neither Descartes nor modern science have been able to successfully prove whether God exists or not.
What's really important, no matter whether such a being exists or not, is that the ideology of God has certainly existed throughout the history of man. Moreover, the power of this ideology of God has proven to be overwhelming among the believers who have faith in its religion. Even for the non-believers or so called atheists, the ideology of God has an affect and/or an influence on them in one way or another. On a larger scale, it is not an exaggeration to say that our society is built on the ideology of God. What is your opinion? "In God we trust?"
Sunday 30 December 2012
EXIST
For centuries man has grappled with the riddle of what it means to be a
person. But the questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? are
still unanswered. Yet, while man is still a long way from arriving at any
acceptable definitions, there is deep within everyone the hint of an idea of
what it means to be a whole person, that is happy, functioning and fulfilled.
So, throughout history man has made a continuous search to find out what
makes him whole. Every person is different so the special situation in which
one person finds fulfillment can't work for everyone. But in the lives of those
who have found fulfillment there is a universal pattern. The universal pattern
is that those who have found fulfillment have had a willingness to accept
change and take risks. Conversely, those who have not found wholeness are
characterized by an unconquerable desire to be safe, to be out of danger and
to avoid risk.
The first step in the search for identity is to answer the question, How
do you see yourself? In the play No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre Estelle loses
sight of her identity. She says "When I can't see myself, I begin to wonder if
I really and truly exist." What a man sees himself as in the mirror largely
determines his actions during the day. Estelle had to look into the "mirror" of
men to confirm her identity. A man is the number one determining factor in
discovering who he is. Each individual must understand that he is responsible
for his own pain, misery, unhappiness, or for his own joy. Man is not a
product of what people have done or are now doing to us. Man has the
power to become whatever he wants to be; to feel as much love or anger or
joy as we want to feel. Another subsequent factor in determining our identity
is the image, name, or label given to us by society. In other words, what we
believe other people think of us. Most people participate in many groups
friends, school, family, jobs, clubs, churches and more each contributing to
our identity. We have to accept the death of the superman who is alone
needing no one, inner directed and indifferent to his surroundings. We see in
Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment that when Raskolnkov separates
himself from humanity by committing murder that he could not survive. A
person needs to understand that they are responsible for their own choices but
they cannot discount the fact that there will always be a group that is essential
to understanding their identity.
There is a far more important area than how man sees himself or how
society sees him, this area is where he has the most control over his own
identity. The area in which he has most control over his own identity is in the
area of what he is actually doing. In other words, man determines himself by
the choices he makes. Having this freedom of choice entails commitment and
responsibility. Since individuals are free to choose their own path they must
accept the responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. In
the play No Exit by Sartre the characters Estelle and Garcin thought of
themselves as being nobler than what they were, when in reality the choices
they made determined one to be a boy toy and the other to be a cruel coward.
The Bible also gives us some insight on this point. What made Moses
Moses? The fact that he made the choices he did. If Moses had stayed in
Pharaoh's court, if Moses had stayed in the desserts of Midian, or if Moses
had refused to go to Pharaoh, then he would not have been Moses. We have
the freedom to choose and we become what we choose to do.
Far to many people are locked into set patterns of thinking and living.
People resist change vigorously satisfied with the dull normality of the same
routines. One of the most vital ingredients to any fulfilling life is the ability to
accept change and choose to risk. Change for most people does not always
feel good but it is an important part in growing. Most people fear change
because they are afraid of the risks that it will bring. When people do not
conquer their fear all growth stops. The fear of growing of old is what kept
Estelle from being more than mere a boy toy. The fear of dying kept Garcin
from being a great pacifist journalist. If a Congressional Medal of Honor
winner had not conquered his fear of death, to jump out of a trench to save his
buddy, his friend would be dead. If Moses had not conquered his fear of
losing a comfortable life, Israel would still be slaves to Egypt. If Columbus
had not conquered his fear of falling off the earth, America would not have
been settled. If my Dad had not conquered his fear of rejection, I would have
never of been born. People need to look at their fear, consider all the options
then move out and act boldly. People can stand outside their fear indefinitely
and nothing will change. But everyone has within themselves the resources
and the strengths to face and confront their fears, and to become the whole
person they want to become, they have to do it.
The questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? may
never be answered in our lifetime. But people can begin to lead more
fulfilling lives by understanding and applying three closely related principles.
People must begin to see themselves as being their own self and not just a
product of society. After people realize that they are their own self they must
realize they are what they do. The final step in living more fulfilling lives is
to be open to change and risk. Breaking from this paralyzing fear will allow
people to realize life is a gift and they will try to live every day to the fullest.
person. But the questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? are
still unanswered. Yet, while man is still a long way from arriving at any
acceptable definitions, there is deep within everyone the hint of an idea of
what it means to be a whole person, that is happy, functioning and fulfilled.
So, throughout history man has made a continuous search to find out what
makes him whole. Every person is different so the special situation in which
one person finds fulfillment can't work for everyone. But in the lives of those
who have found fulfillment there is a universal pattern. The universal pattern
is that those who have found fulfillment have had a willingness to accept
change and take risks. Conversely, those who have not found wholeness are
characterized by an unconquerable desire to be safe, to be out of danger and
to avoid risk.
The first step in the search for identity is to answer the question, How
do you see yourself? In the play No Exit by Jean Paul Sartre Estelle loses
sight of her identity. She says "When I can't see myself, I begin to wonder if
I really and truly exist." What a man sees himself as in the mirror largely
determines his actions during the day. Estelle had to look into the "mirror" of
men to confirm her identity. A man is the number one determining factor in
discovering who he is. Each individual must understand that he is responsible
for his own pain, misery, unhappiness, or for his own joy. Man is not a
product of what people have done or are now doing to us. Man has the
power to become whatever he wants to be; to feel as much love or anger or
joy as we want to feel. Another subsequent factor in determining our identity
is the image, name, or label given to us by society. In other words, what we
believe other people think of us. Most people participate in many groups
friends, school, family, jobs, clubs, churches and more each contributing to
our identity. We have to accept the death of the superman who is alone
needing no one, inner directed and indifferent to his surroundings. We see in
Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment that when Raskolnkov separates
himself from humanity by committing murder that he could not survive. A
person needs to understand that they are responsible for their own choices but
they cannot discount the fact that there will always be a group that is essential
to understanding their identity.
There is a far more important area than how man sees himself or how
society sees him, this area is where he has the most control over his own
identity. The area in which he has most control over his own identity is in the
area of what he is actually doing. In other words, man determines himself by
the choices he makes. Having this freedom of choice entails commitment and
responsibility. Since individuals are free to choose their own path they must
accept the responsibility of following their commitment wherever it leads. In
the play No Exit by Sartre the characters Estelle and Garcin thought of
themselves as being nobler than what they were, when in reality the choices
they made determined one to be a boy toy and the other to be a cruel coward.
The Bible also gives us some insight on this point. What made Moses
Moses? The fact that he made the choices he did. If Moses had stayed in
Pharaoh's court, if Moses had stayed in the desserts of Midian, or if Moses
had refused to go to Pharaoh, then he would not have been Moses. We have
the freedom to choose and we become what we choose to do.
Far to many people are locked into set patterns of thinking and living.
People resist change vigorously satisfied with the dull normality of the same
routines. One of the most vital ingredients to any fulfilling life is the ability to
accept change and choose to risk. Change for most people does not always
feel good but it is an important part in growing. Most people fear change
because they are afraid of the risks that it will bring. When people do not
conquer their fear all growth stops. The fear of growing of old is what kept
Estelle from being more than mere a boy toy. The fear of dying kept Garcin
from being a great pacifist journalist. If a Congressional Medal of Honor
winner had not conquered his fear of death, to jump out of a trench to save his
buddy, his friend would be dead. If Moses had not conquered his fear of
losing a comfortable life, Israel would still be slaves to Egypt. If Columbus
had not conquered his fear of falling off the earth, America would not have
been settled. If my Dad had not conquered his fear of rejection, I would have
never of been born. People need to look at their fear, consider all the options
then move out and act boldly. People can stand outside their fear indefinitely
and nothing will change. But everyone has within themselves the resources
and the strengths to face and confront their fears, and to become the whole
person they want to become, they have to do it.
The questions Who is man? and What is the meaning of life? may
never be answered in our lifetime. But people can begin to lead more
fulfilling lives by understanding and applying three closely related principles.
People must begin to see themselves as being their own self and not just a
product of society. After people realize that they are their own self they must
realize they are what they do. The final step in living more fulfilling lives is
to be open to change and risk. Breaking from this paralyzing fear will allow
people to realize life is a gift and they will try to live every day to the fullest.
Exestentialist View on Human Condition
Existentialist View of Human Condition
Two of the main principles of Existentialist Human Condition are: That man exists and then creates himself and what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else as well. Lets examine the first principle: man exists and then defines himself. What it means is that man is created on this earth and is nothing but a body, blood and guts. What he chooses to do and to be is what makes him a man. If a man comes into this world and chooses to steal, cheat, kill and lie then that is what that man has made himself to be. While society may see him as a "evil" person, that is what is right for him. Now on the other hand if a person chooses to be generous, kind, honest and loving, society may see him as a "good" person while it is still right for him. According to the Existentialists, a person is placed on this earth with no predisposed "good" or "evil" values, one man is not created with any more good or evil than the next. By the decisions we make in life we create ourselves. Next the second view, what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else. This is a view I really believe in. Everything we do in life effects someone else, whether we no it or not. Every time we drive our car. Every time we eat something, spend money, go for a jog someone else is effected. For an example: a man goes to the store and buys a stereo.
First of all the clerk the clerk is effected because they have to check you out, so you have taken some of their time. The store is effected because they are minus one radio from their store. The manufacturer now has to make one more to replace the one that was bought from the store. The manufacturing employees are effected because put the radio together, and so on. On the other hand a man who chooses to steal that same stereo will effect even more people. If he get caught the store, the manufacturer, the police, the courts, the jails and all the people who are involved with those organizations. So now the question is raised "what if everyone acted the same way that man did?" Well there could be nothing but anarchy, no laws, or government. Basically we would revert to a type of Neanderthal type state. This is why many classic philosophers have problems with the Existentialist point of view, because of the "what if" questions.
Two of the main principles of Existentialist Human Condition are: That man exists and then creates himself and what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else as well. Lets examine the first principle: man exists and then defines himself. What it means is that man is created on this earth and is nothing but a body, blood and guts. What he chooses to do and to be is what makes him a man. If a man comes into this world and chooses to steal, cheat, kill and lie then that is what that man has made himself to be. While society may see him as a "evil" person, that is what is right for him. Now on the other hand if a person chooses to be generous, kind, honest and loving, society may see him as a "good" person while it is still right for him. According to the Existentialists, a person is placed on this earth with no predisposed "good" or "evil" values, one man is not created with any more good or evil than the next. By the decisions we make in life we create ourselves. Next the second view, what man chooses for himself he chooses for everyone else. This is a view I really believe in. Everything we do in life effects someone else, whether we no it or not. Every time we drive our car. Every time we eat something, spend money, go for a jog someone else is effected. For an example: a man goes to the store and buys a stereo.
First of all the clerk the clerk is effected because they have to check you out, so you have taken some of their time. The store is effected because they are minus one radio from their store. The manufacturer now has to make one more to replace the one that was bought from the store. The manufacturing employees are effected because put the radio together, and so on. On the other hand a man who chooses to steal that same stereo will effect even more people. If he get caught the store, the manufacturer, the police, the courts, the jails and all the people who are involved with those organizations. So now the question is raised "what if everyone acted the same way that man did?" Well there could be nothing but anarchy, no laws, or government. Basically we would revert to a type of Neanderthal type state. This is why many classic philosophers have problems with the Existentialist point of view, because of the "what if" questions.
Evil from a theologians point of view
By textbook definition, evil is "What is morally wrong, what hinders the realization of good" (Webster). If that is evil, then what is good? It's "what is morally excellent, virtuous, well behaved, dutiful." (Webster) Philosophers have argued over what evil is and why it exists for thousands of years. They have raised questions like 'How can there be a God if there is evil?' These questions were raised due to God's nature: he is said to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. If this is the case, why doesn't he stop evil? And, since people are supposed to be created in God's image, why are they capable of moral evil? If one believes that God exists, there can only be one answer: evil exists because God allows it, and moral evil exists because God has given us freedom of choice.
Evil has been looked at in many different ways throughout the years. Philosophers like Socrates and Plato believed evil was a matter of ignorance. Ancient Persians saw good and evil as two principles, "engaged in a perpetual struggle."(Collier) In reality, evil is merely the absence of good. "The essence of all reality is good, evil is merely the faulty reflection of reality found in a world of particulars."(Funk & Wagnalls) There can be many different types of evil. Two of such types are moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil consists of things like pain and suffering, while moral evil consists of making 'bad' decisions. "Moral evil depends on the exercise of human will; natural evil is independent of this." (MacGregor) The main difference between these two evils is that people are unable to control natural evil, while moral evil depends on their will. Some people even say physical evil is a human necessity; "Without the evil of pain, man would not be warned of illness and of danger". (Colliers) In life, there are times where 'bad' people are better off than 'good' people. Why is this? Some say it is a test for the soul, and rewards await us. "The human family is as one, and its members help one another by their good actions as the also cause suffering to one another for their faults"(Collier). As an example, take what happened to Jesus. He suffered for all sins of mankind, and through this saved them all. But what of moral evil, which consists of things like murder, which people can control? Why does God permit it if the consequences are undesirable?
To understand why moral evil exists, the concept of free will must be understood.
Freedom of choice, or free will is "the power and exercise of unhampered choice." (Webster) Therefore humans are capable of making their own decisions and doing whatever they please. Freedom doesn't mean an absence of influences, rather that these influences do not force a person to decide in a certain way, and he/she can choose between these influences (e.g. A man thinks a walk outside would be a good idea because he needs fresh air. But, the man is tired and doesn't really feel like it. He must choose which 'path' to follow ) People don't always know the influences that act upon them all the time; some of these are subconscious. Certain people would say that if they knew these subconscious motivations, our behavior could be explained and free will would be nullified, since our behavior would always be predictable. "Advocates of free will do not deny that these unconscious causes exist, simply that it is a positive casual influence added to the equation." (Royce) Let's say, for example, a person wanted to hurt another. This person might not know why, but can still choose not to. Therefore if a person's moral character is well known, his decisions are most likely predictable and not random. Thus, free will is not random, not completely determined, but necessary for the development of moral character. That is why moral evil exists. It is a side-effect of free will. "Christian philosophy has always attributed the presence of evil in the world to the actions of a man's free will." (Collier) To understand, the situation must first be analyzed. Since God is all-good, 'doing' good would be doing something which God himself would do or approve to. Therefore doing evil would be the opposite; doing something which God wouldn't do or approve to. Going back to a previous question, why would God want us to be capable of moral evil?
"if it is not a logical impossibility for man to choose good on one or even
several occasions, then there is no logical impossibility for man to choose
good on every occasion", "If it was open to an omnibenevolent God the possibility of creating beings who freely choose good, and He did not take
this opportunity, this would prove that He is not omnipotent.", " If God is
all-powerful He should have made human beings perfect. A perfect God
should create perfect beings." (Mackie)
To answer all of there arguments, one must look at God's relationship to people
and what his motives are. What God really wants is to have people like him and to have a close relationship to him. If God created people so they chose good on every occasion, he would be the cause of their behavior. God is known to be 'the source of what good', good itself. Therefore the best choice a person could make would be to have a close relationship to God. However, if God created humans always to make this choice, they would not be free compared to him. Why would he want us to freely choose to have a close relationship to him? "Free will, though it makes evil possible, is the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." (Lewis) There are many examples that can prove this. Let's take one of true love. In case one, a man wants to marry a woman, but knows she isn't interested in him. He forces the woman to marry him and tells her that she will love him. Deep down, this man knows she resents and probably hates him. Now in case two, a man asks a woman to marry him, and she says yes because she loves him. Their relationship is one where their love is genuine and can grow. Now, apply this to God. Because he loves us, he gives us the choice to decide whether or not to follow him.
"To have created men without freedom would mean that man could not
freely love and serve God, or in any way contribute to his own salvation." (Collier) "You have the freedom of choice to accept God, which
is to love Him, or to reject Him, which is to decline to love him."
(MacGregor)
Despite all opposing arguments, God is all-good and all-powerful. Moral evil is in part caused by free will and free will is the only way that allows true love and good moral character to grow. Some may say that they don't agree with this statement, and, by exercising the gift of free will continue to separate themselves from God. But, if God is the greatest good, why would one want to distance themselves from him? If God is the greatest good, an appropriate response would seem to get to know Him.
*** really sorry, but I lost the bibliography ***
Evil has been looked at in many different ways throughout the years. Philosophers like Socrates and Plato believed evil was a matter of ignorance. Ancient Persians saw good and evil as two principles, "engaged in a perpetual struggle."(Collier) In reality, evil is merely the absence of good. "The essence of all reality is good, evil is merely the faulty reflection of reality found in a world of particulars."(Funk & Wagnalls) There can be many different types of evil. Two of such types are moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil consists of things like pain and suffering, while moral evil consists of making 'bad' decisions. "Moral evil depends on the exercise of human will; natural evil is independent of this." (MacGregor) The main difference between these two evils is that people are unable to control natural evil, while moral evil depends on their will. Some people even say physical evil is a human necessity; "Without the evil of pain, man would not be warned of illness and of danger". (Colliers) In life, there are times where 'bad' people are better off than 'good' people. Why is this? Some say it is a test for the soul, and rewards await us. "The human family is as one, and its members help one another by their good actions as the also cause suffering to one another for their faults"(Collier). As an example, take what happened to Jesus. He suffered for all sins of mankind, and through this saved them all. But what of moral evil, which consists of things like murder, which people can control? Why does God permit it if the consequences are undesirable?
To understand why moral evil exists, the concept of free will must be understood.
Freedom of choice, or free will is "the power and exercise of unhampered choice." (Webster) Therefore humans are capable of making their own decisions and doing whatever they please. Freedom doesn't mean an absence of influences, rather that these influences do not force a person to decide in a certain way, and he/she can choose between these influences (e.g. A man thinks a walk outside would be a good idea because he needs fresh air. But, the man is tired and doesn't really feel like it. He must choose which 'path' to follow ) People don't always know the influences that act upon them all the time; some of these are subconscious. Certain people would say that if they knew these subconscious motivations, our behavior could be explained and free will would be nullified, since our behavior would always be predictable. "Advocates of free will do not deny that these unconscious causes exist, simply that it is a positive casual influence added to the equation." (Royce) Let's say, for example, a person wanted to hurt another. This person might not know why, but can still choose not to. Therefore if a person's moral character is well known, his decisions are most likely predictable and not random. Thus, free will is not random, not completely determined, but necessary for the development of moral character. That is why moral evil exists. It is a side-effect of free will. "Christian philosophy has always attributed the presence of evil in the world to the actions of a man's free will." (Collier) To understand, the situation must first be analyzed. Since God is all-good, 'doing' good would be doing something which God himself would do or approve to. Therefore doing evil would be the opposite; doing something which God wouldn't do or approve to. Going back to a previous question, why would God want us to be capable of moral evil?
"if it is not a logical impossibility for man to choose good on one or even
several occasions, then there is no logical impossibility for man to choose
good on every occasion", "If it was open to an omnibenevolent God the possibility of creating beings who freely choose good, and He did not take
this opportunity, this would prove that He is not omnipotent.", " If God is
all-powerful He should have made human beings perfect. A perfect God
should create perfect beings." (Mackie)
To answer all of there arguments, one must look at God's relationship to people
and what his motives are. What God really wants is to have people like him and to have a close relationship to him. If God created people so they chose good on every occasion, he would be the cause of their behavior. God is known to be 'the source of what good', good itself. Therefore the best choice a person could make would be to have a close relationship to God. However, if God created humans always to make this choice, they would not be free compared to him. Why would he want us to freely choose to have a close relationship to him? "Free will, though it makes evil possible, is the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having." (Lewis) There are many examples that can prove this. Let's take one of true love. In case one, a man wants to marry a woman, but knows she isn't interested in him. He forces the woman to marry him and tells her that she will love him. Deep down, this man knows she resents and probably hates him. Now in case two, a man asks a woman to marry him, and she says yes because she loves him. Their relationship is one where their love is genuine and can grow. Now, apply this to God. Because he loves us, he gives us the choice to decide whether or not to follow him.
"To have created men without freedom would mean that man could not
freely love and serve God, or in any way contribute to his own salvation." (Collier) "You have the freedom of choice to accept God, which
is to love Him, or to reject Him, which is to decline to love him."
(MacGregor)
Despite all opposing arguments, God is all-good and all-powerful. Moral evil is in part caused by free will and free will is the only way that allows true love and good moral character to grow. Some may say that they don't agree with this statement, and, by exercising the gift of free will continue to separate themselves from God. But, if God is the greatest good, why would one want to distance themselves from him? If God is the greatest good, an appropriate response would seem to get to know Him.
*** really sorry, but I lost the bibliography ***
Euthanasia
Euthanasia
Euthanasia - is it killing or letting die? In the last thirty years, this has been a highly controversial topic, the worldly morals versus the Christian. Although there are certain instances where it is justifiably considered to be letting die, it is essentially killing.
§ Euthanasia comes from a Greek word, meaning "easy death," and is now often associated with the infamous Dr. Kevorkian. There are three types of euthanasia - what doctors consider to be "letting the patient die," for instance taking both conscious and unconscious patients off of life support, not reviving the patient in case of a heart failure, et cetera. There is also assisted suicide. Dr. Kevorkian and his suicide machine have made themselves known through this technique. The machine injects a lethal dosage into the "patients" blood stream, killing then painlessly within ten minutes.
§ The first type mentioned above is known as "active voluntary euthanasia." This is where a conscious, mentally competent person, usually with a severe physical ailment, loses the will to live. Many have said that keeping them alive is just prolonging their death, a form of cruel and unusual punishment. They may ask that life support equipment be disconnected so that they can die quickly, painlessly, with dignity. Most doctors are trained to try their best to defeat death, or at least try to delay it as long as possible. But if the patient is hopelessly ill, and would prefer to die, the doctor may consult the hospital ethics committee, and take him or her off of life support. When taken to court in these issues, the doctors defend themselves in saying, "I didn't kill him, I let him die." This is illegal throughout the United States and the rest of the world, but it still is a common occurrence.
§ The second type, "passive voluntary euthanasia," is done when a terminally ill patient's or a patient in a persistent vegetative state's (PVS) family chooses to take their loved one off of life support. A PVS patient has no self-awareness or any awareness of their surroundings because the cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain, id dead. The brain stem, the part of the brain that controls the major organs of the body, still works, though. A PVS patient will never become conscious again after entering this state, will remain like this until he or she dies. They are not brain dead, however. Technically, in the United States, brain death occurs when the brain tissue breaks down, disabling the lungs and other vital organs, and requiring machines to keep the patient alive. The family may choose to have the patient taken off of life support if they wish, and if the doctors comply, it will be done. §There was a case, though, where the doctor said he had a "moral problem" in killing a patient and the parents took the doctor to court. The judge ruled that removing life support "would be homicide and an act of euthanasia" and said that "judicial conscience and morality" told him that the doctors were dealing with the patient correctly. But the parents later appealed to the Supreme Court and the decision was reversed, stating that the patient had the right to refuse treatment.
§ The third and most hotly contested type of euthanasia is doctor-assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his suicide machine have become famous for his contribution to this type of euthanasia. His first case, in 1990, involved Janet Adkins of Portland, OR, after she found out that she had Alzheimer's disease. She had seen the doctor on Donahue and in Newsweek magazine, and contacted him. He outfitted his Volkswagen van with the suicide device, and on June fourth, 1990, They drove to a local park in Michigan. The machine had three bottles of liquid hanging upside down inside a frame. One had a harmless saline solution in it; the next had a chemical that causes unconsciousness; the third had potassium chloride, a compound that stops the heart. Kevorkian hooked Adkins up to a tube similar to that on an I.V. She died in less than six minutes. According to Kevorkian, just before dying, "she looked at me with grateful eyes and said, 'Thank you, thank you, thank you.'" The doctor then called the police and reported what had happened. He was barred from using the suicide machine again, but four months later he assisted in the suicide of two women.
The question is, though, should euthanasia be legalized, is it ethical? It is not ethical, and in almost all cases, it is murder. In the Netherlands, it is already performed widely and openly. In November of 1991, voters in Washington State had a chance to decide whether or not they wanted to legalize euthanasia, to make legal "dying with dignity." It was voted in to legalize it under the following conditions: the patient would have to be mentally competent, two doctors would have to agree that the patient had less than six months to live, and the patient would be required to ask for euthanasia in writing. But even though it was voted legal, when asked on television, everyone asked said that they strongly believed that it was unethical. Said one, "Rules against killing are not isolated moral principles, but pieces of a web that form a moral code. The more threads removed, the weaker it becomes." Said another, "Asking doctors to kill undermines the moral integrity and confidence in a profession that heals, comforts, and protects life." Dr. Leo Alexander stated that "the problem with euthanasia is the acceptance of an attitude that life is worthless, can be thrown away. That attitude is in its early stages right now, but as it progresses, so will our value of life drop. Anyone, the socially unproductive, the socially unwanted, will be considered useless, will kill off our own species, our morals. It is a way of mocking human life, turning ourselves into God, deciding who is fit to live and die, as we push the real live God out of our lives." Says F. Schaeffer and C. Koop, "Every life is pious and worthwhile in itself - not only to us as human beings, but also to God. Every person is worth fighting for. We must use our constitutional processes, while we still have them, to fight for the rights and lives of our older persons and persons with disabilities."
Euthanasia - is it killing or letting die? In the last thirty years, this has been a highly controversial topic, the worldly morals versus the Christian. Although there are certain instances where it is justifiably considered to be letting die, it is essentially killing.
§ Euthanasia comes from a Greek word, meaning "easy death," and is now often associated with the infamous Dr. Kevorkian. There are three types of euthanasia - what doctors consider to be "letting the patient die," for instance taking both conscious and unconscious patients off of life support, not reviving the patient in case of a heart failure, et cetera. There is also assisted suicide. Dr. Kevorkian and his suicide machine have made themselves known through this technique. The machine injects a lethal dosage into the "patients" blood stream, killing then painlessly within ten minutes.
§ The first type mentioned above is known as "active voluntary euthanasia." This is where a conscious, mentally competent person, usually with a severe physical ailment, loses the will to live. Many have said that keeping them alive is just prolonging their death, a form of cruel and unusual punishment. They may ask that life support equipment be disconnected so that they can die quickly, painlessly, with dignity. Most doctors are trained to try their best to defeat death, or at least try to delay it as long as possible. But if the patient is hopelessly ill, and would prefer to die, the doctor may consult the hospital ethics committee, and take him or her off of life support. When taken to court in these issues, the doctors defend themselves in saying, "I didn't kill him, I let him die." This is illegal throughout the United States and the rest of the world, but it still is a common occurrence.
§ The second type, "passive voluntary euthanasia," is done when a terminally ill patient's or a patient in a persistent vegetative state's (PVS) family chooses to take their loved one off of life support. A PVS patient has no self-awareness or any awareness of their surroundings because the cerebral cortex, the thinking part of the brain, id dead. The brain stem, the part of the brain that controls the major organs of the body, still works, though. A PVS patient will never become conscious again after entering this state, will remain like this until he or she dies. They are not brain dead, however. Technically, in the United States, brain death occurs when the brain tissue breaks down, disabling the lungs and other vital organs, and requiring machines to keep the patient alive. The family may choose to have the patient taken off of life support if they wish, and if the doctors comply, it will be done. §There was a case, though, where the doctor said he had a "moral problem" in killing a patient and the parents took the doctor to court. The judge ruled that removing life support "would be homicide and an act of euthanasia" and said that "judicial conscience and morality" told him that the doctors were dealing with the patient correctly. But the parents later appealed to the Supreme Court and the decision was reversed, stating that the patient had the right to refuse treatment.
§ The third and most hotly contested type of euthanasia is doctor-assisted suicide. Dr. Jack Kevorkian and his suicide machine have become famous for his contribution to this type of euthanasia. His first case, in 1990, involved Janet Adkins of Portland, OR, after she found out that she had Alzheimer's disease. She had seen the doctor on Donahue and in Newsweek magazine, and contacted him. He outfitted his Volkswagen van with the suicide device, and on June fourth, 1990, They drove to a local park in Michigan. The machine had three bottles of liquid hanging upside down inside a frame. One had a harmless saline solution in it; the next had a chemical that causes unconsciousness; the third had potassium chloride, a compound that stops the heart. Kevorkian hooked Adkins up to a tube similar to that on an I.V. She died in less than six minutes. According to Kevorkian, just before dying, "she looked at me with grateful eyes and said, 'Thank you, thank you, thank you.'" The doctor then called the police and reported what had happened. He was barred from using the suicide machine again, but four months later he assisted in the suicide of two women.
The question is, though, should euthanasia be legalized, is it ethical? It is not ethical, and in almost all cases, it is murder. In the Netherlands, it is already performed widely and openly. In November of 1991, voters in Washington State had a chance to decide whether or not they wanted to legalize euthanasia, to make legal "dying with dignity." It was voted in to legalize it under the following conditions: the patient would have to be mentally competent, two doctors would have to agree that the patient had less than six months to live, and the patient would be required to ask for euthanasia in writing. But even though it was voted legal, when asked on television, everyone asked said that they strongly believed that it was unethical. Said one, "Rules against killing are not isolated moral principles, but pieces of a web that form a moral code. The more threads removed, the weaker it becomes." Said another, "Asking doctors to kill undermines the moral integrity and confidence in a profession that heals, comforts, and protects life." Dr. Leo Alexander stated that "the problem with euthanasia is the acceptance of an attitude that life is worthless, can be thrown away. That attitude is in its early stages right now, but as it progresses, so will our value of life drop. Anyone, the socially unproductive, the socially unwanted, will be considered useless, will kill off our own species, our morals. It is a way of mocking human life, turning ourselves into God, deciding who is fit to live and die, as we push the real live God out of our lives." Says F. Schaeffer and C. Koop, "Every life is pious and worthwhile in itself - not only to us as human beings, but also to God. Every person is worth fighting for. We must use our constitutional processes, while we still have them, to fight for the rights and lives of our older persons and persons with disabilities."
EUTHANASIA The Right To Die
EUTHANASIA
THE RIGHT TO DIE:
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic. People argue as to whether or not a person who is terminally ill, or handicap, should have the right or not to ask their doctor, or relatives to die by euthanasia. People say that dying by euthanasia is to die with dignity, instead of living an artificial life on respirators and other life support machines. My personal feelings on this topic is one of the minority. If a person is terminally ill, and there is nothing anyone can do for them, why should they have to suffer? Not only do they suffer but their family does also. They will watch as their condition gets worse, and then the vision in their head of the loved one who has finally died many months after they were diagnose as terminally ill, is a memory of a person lying there helpless, not able to feed themselves, get out of bed, or talk to you.
One notable euthanasia case would be Sue Rodrigous. She had a disease known as Lou Gehrig's disease or ALS, which is a rare incurable disease of the nervous system. ALS gradually destroys the nerves that control the muscles. The results of which are weakness, paralysis, and eventually death. That is what Sue Rodrigous was suffering from for well over a year. Knowing that her condition was only going to get worse, and eventually, after the pain and suffering, would result in death, Sue wanted to die. She wanted people to remember her as a lively healthy woman, not just a body lying helpless in a hospital bed. With that thought in mind, Sue went to court to fight for right to die by euthanasia. The courts did not agree with her though.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian, proposed the creation of a new medical specialist, the "obitiarist," who would assist terminally ill patients to take their own lives, subject to strict guidelines.
His patient also suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease. She was in bad shape, struggling to hold her head up, could not talk, and had to communicate using a computer keyboard. She was deteriorating quickly. "She was very smart," he said, a note of sadness entering his voice. Kevorkian built a machine called the "mercitron," a jumble of tubes and bottles that would allow patients with little mobility to inject themselves with a lethal cocktail of drugs.
In Of Mice and Men by Steinbeck, there are examples of euthanasia. Candy and his dog were together since the dog was a pup. One of the farm hands pointed out that the dog was no good to himself. The dog was old and would surely die a slow death. Knowing this, Candy agreed to let the man shoot the dog in the back of the head so the dog would die without feeling a thing.
" "I don't see no reason for it," said Carlson. He went to his bunk, pulled his bag from underneath it and took out a Luger pistol. "Le's get it over with,"...
Candy looked a long time at Slim to try to find some reversal. And Slim gave him none. At last Canady said softly and hopelessly, "Awright -- take 'im." "
A day later Candy is talking with George and Lennie, and he says that he wishes that when the day came that he was no good to himself anymore just like his dog had been, that someone shoot him.
Of course the most obvious example of euthanasia is at the end of the novel. Lennie who is fond of things that are soft to touch is stroking Curly's wife's hair. He becomes carried away and breaks her neck and kills her. George, fearing Lennie's life, takes his gun and runs into the bushes with him. As the dogs and the men from the farm run after them George realizes that when they catch Lennie they would either torture him, or send him to a mental hospital. George knows that would just kill Lennie. So George takes his gun and kills Lennie with one shot to the head.
"And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head. The hand shook violently, but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger."
With every example of euthanasia there are some people who agree, and some who are dead set against it. There are comprehensible, and logical reasons why some people are against euthanasia. Most people want their loved ones with them until their day has actually come for them to die. It might give people an understanding that it was all right to kill themselves. While the patient is lying in bed some clinic, or scientist, might find a cure for the very disease that patient is dying from. For medical reasons they may be able to find out more about a certain disease while someone has it. As many times as you ponder the idea of euthanasia you will find just as many pros as cons. Maybe we have to start thinking like the person in the hospital bed, who is unable to walk, talk, feed themselves, think for themselves, or even breathe for themselves. Even from the perspective of the family member who has to watch their own flesh and blood suffer.
O! that this too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew;
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!
· William Shakespeare
THE RIGHT TO DIE:
Euthanasia is a very controversial topic. People argue as to whether or not a person who is terminally ill, or handicap, should have the right or not to ask their doctor, or relatives to die by euthanasia. People say that dying by euthanasia is to die with dignity, instead of living an artificial life on respirators and other life support machines. My personal feelings on this topic is one of the minority. If a person is terminally ill, and there is nothing anyone can do for them, why should they have to suffer? Not only do they suffer but their family does also. They will watch as their condition gets worse, and then the vision in their head of the loved one who has finally died many months after they were diagnose as terminally ill, is a memory of a person lying there helpless, not able to feed themselves, get out of bed, or talk to you.
One notable euthanasia case would be Sue Rodrigous. She had a disease known as Lou Gehrig's disease or ALS, which is a rare incurable disease of the nervous system. ALS gradually destroys the nerves that control the muscles. The results of which are weakness, paralysis, and eventually death. That is what Sue Rodrigous was suffering from for well over a year. Knowing that her condition was only going to get worse, and eventually, after the pain and suffering, would result in death, Sue wanted to die. She wanted people to remember her as a lively healthy woman, not just a body lying helpless in a hospital bed. With that thought in mind, Sue went to court to fight for right to die by euthanasia. The courts did not agree with her though.
Dr. Jack Kevorkian, proposed the creation of a new medical specialist, the "obitiarist," who would assist terminally ill patients to take their own lives, subject to strict guidelines.
His patient also suffered from Lou Gehrig's disease. She was in bad shape, struggling to hold her head up, could not talk, and had to communicate using a computer keyboard. She was deteriorating quickly. "She was very smart," he said, a note of sadness entering his voice. Kevorkian built a machine called the "mercitron," a jumble of tubes and bottles that would allow patients with little mobility to inject themselves with a lethal cocktail of drugs.
In Of Mice and Men by Steinbeck, there are examples of euthanasia. Candy and his dog were together since the dog was a pup. One of the farm hands pointed out that the dog was no good to himself. The dog was old and would surely die a slow death. Knowing this, Candy agreed to let the man shoot the dog in the back of the head so the dog would die without feeling a thing.
" "I don't see no reason for it," said Carlson. He went to his bunk, pulled his bag from underneath it and took out a Luger pistol. "Le's get it over with,"...
Candy looked a long time at Slim to try to find some reversal. And Slim gave him none. At last Canady said softly and hopelessly, "Awright -- take 'im." "
A day later Candy is talking with George and Lennie, and he says that he wishes that when the day came that he was no good to himself anymore just like his dog had been, that someone shoot him.
Of course the most obvious example of euthanasia is at the end of the novel. Lennie who is fond of things that are soft to touch is stroking Curly's wife's hair. He becomes carried away and breaks her neck and kills her. George, fearing Lennie's life, takes his gun and runs into the bushes with him. As the dogs and the men from the farm run after them George realizes that when they catch Lennie they would either torture him, or send him to a mental hospital. George knows that would just kill Lennie. So George takes his gun and kills Lennie with one shot to the head.
"And George raised the gun and steadied it, and he brought the muzzle of it close to the back of Lennie's head. The hand shook violently, but his face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger."
With every example of euthanasia there are some people who agree, and some who are dead set against it. There are comprehensible, and logical reasons why some people are against euthanasia. Most people want their loved ones with them until their day has actually come for them to die. It might give people an understanding that it was all right to kill themselves. While the patient is lying in bed some clinic, or scientist, might find a cure for the very disease that patient is dying from. For medical reasons they may be able to find out more about a certain disease while someone has it. As many times as you ponder the idea of euthanasia you will find just as many pros as cons. Maybe we have to start thinking like the person in the hospital bed, who is unable to walk, talk, feed themselves, think for themselves, or even breathe for themselves. Even from the perspective of the family member who has to watch their own flesh and blood suffer.
O! that this too solid flesh would melt,
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew;
Or that the Everlasting had not fix'd
His canon 'gainst self-slaughter!
· William Shakespeare
Euthanasia 4
There has been much debate in recent American society over the legality and morality of a
patients right-to-die. Current legal statue prohibits any form of euthanasia, however, there
are many moral and ethical dilemmas concerning the controversy. For the purposes of this
essay, I will define euthanasia as the implementation of a decision that a person's life will
come to an end before it need stop. In other words, it is a life ending when it would
otherwise be prolonged. There is an important distinction between voluntary euthanasia
where the decision to terminate life coincides with the individuals wishes and involuntary
euthanasia where the individual concerned does not know about the decision and has not
approved it in advance. I will be dealing specifically with the concept of voluntary
euthanasia, for it seems intuitive that involuntary euthanasia is not only illegal but also
profoundly immoral. Opponents arguments against euthanasia which fail to substantiate
their claims, many proponents arguments highlighted by the right to autonomy, and
empirical examples of legalized euthanasia all prove the moral legitimacy of physician-
assisted-suicide.
Opponents of euthanasia generally point to three main arguments which I will
mention only for the purposes of refuting them. First, many cite the Hippocratic oath
which reads, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such
counsel" as a reason to oppose euthanasia. Clearly, the Hippocratic oath does condemn
the practice, however, I do not find this as reason enough to reject the moral permissibility
of euthanasia. If the premise of the oath is flawed (i.e., if it is morally permissible for a
physician to assist in suicide), then a physician should not be prohibited from assisting in
suicide simply because of an oath. Indeed, if it is proven (as will be done later in this
essay) that euthanasia is a moral way to end needless suffering, then doctors should be
obliged to fulfill their patients requests for early death. The second argument that
opponents of euthanasia cite is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic of human life being the
ultimate value of existence. This argument is vague at best. At the most well-explained
level, it says that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved in every
instance (because human bodily life is the life of a person) thus euthanasia is wrong
because it is killing before life would naturally end. This argument is proven unsound in
two ways. First, I believe that human life is distinct from personhood. Many patients
requesting euthanasia have ceased to be persons because they are terminally ill and
incapable of enjoying the gift of existence. Thus many of these individuals ( and certainly
those in a vegetative state with a living will that requests euthanasia) are living lives that
are not intrinsically valuable. Second, I disagree with the notion that life is intrinsically
valuable and should be preserved in every instance. I believe that life is valuable only
inasmuch as it is the basis for rational decision-making. (This argument will be elaborated
upon later in the essay). Therefore, we respect the value of life by respecting a persons
autonomy and allowing them to willingly end their life. The final argument given by
opponents of euthanasia is the notion of a slippery slope in which legalized voluntary
euthanasia will snowball and begin to result in widespread involuntary euthanasia. The
basis for this reasoning is that under a system of voluntary euthanasia, doctors must make
the final determination of whether a person can be euthanized or not therefore allowing
them to decide if a patients life is "worth" living. Many feel that if doctors can do this to
competent people, it could snowball to incompetent patients and doctors may make
decisions to euthanize without the will of patients. However, I argue that the moral
permissibility of euthanasia depends on a patients voluntary consent. If a patient does not
expressly wish to die, then a doctor who kills a patient without the consent of that patient
would be acting immorally. From a legal standpoint, the request for euthanasia would have
to come first from the patient, which diminishes the likelihood of involuntary euthanasia
occurring. Given these two scenarios, the idea of a slippery slope is dispelled on both a
theoretical and a pragmatic level. Furthermore, empirical evidence that will be discussed
later disproves the notion of a slippery slope.
In addition to the responses to opponents claims, there are many reasons why
euthanasia is morally acceptable. The justifications for voluntary active euthanasia rest in
four main areas. First, society has a moral obligation to respect individual autonomy when
we can do so without harm to others and when doing so does not violate some other
moral obligation. This is because life is intrinsically valuable only as a result of its
necessity for decision-making and free will. Life without autonomy ceases to be of the
utmost value, rather, a persons right to choose his or her life (and death) course should be
the highest priority. This principle guarantees a persons right to have his or her own
decisions respected in determining medical treatment, including euthanasia. The second
argument for the moral acceptance of euthanasia rests on the premise of mercy and
compassion, two ideals which are essential to human dignity. In most cases when a person
requests euthanasia they are suffering unrelenting and continual pain, and there is no
reasonable possibility of substantial recovery. It is morally repugnant to watch another
person suffer through humiliating helplessness and constant pain when one could prevent
it. It is widely considered humane to put animals that are permanently physically impaired
to death, yet humans cannot currently receive the same mercy under the law, even when
they request it. When we are confronted with suffering which is wholly destructive in its
consequences and, as far as we can tell, could have no beneficial result, there is a moral
obligation to end it. The third affirmation of the moral legitimacy of euthanasia is that of
justice. Euthanasia allows for fairer distribution of medical resources in a society which
lacks sufficient resources to treat all of its people. Because we have an obligation to
relieve suffering, people have a right to whatever medical resources might be effective in
the treatment of their condition. However, the scarcity of resources ensures that not all
medical claims can be met, therefore a fair way to distribute medical resources must be
found. If treatment must be denied to some people with the result that they will die, then
it is better to deny it to those people who are medically unsalvageable and will die soon
with or without treatment. The final justification for euthanasia is that the burden of proof
for rejecting the morality of the practice should rest with its opponents. It is up to any
person or institution wanting to prevent an individual from doing something he or she
wants to do to provide sound reasoning which justifies interference. Since it has already
been proven that opponents arguments against euthanasia fail to substantiate their claim
that it should not occur, then the practice should be considered moral.
The Netherlands successful experiment with legalized voluntary euthanasia is
further proof that physician-assisted-suicide is a moral action. The Dutch legalized
euthanasia partly because they realize that the practice occurs frequently in the status quo
and is now entirely at the discretion of physicians. 85% of deaths in the United States
occur in hospitals or nursing homes; of those 70% involve withholding life-sustaining
treatment. This is certainly a form of euthanasia, yet it is uncontrolled and oftentimes
performed without the patient's knowledge. On the contrary, the Dutch system brings the
question of euthanasia into the open and allows for regulations which lessen the likelihood
of a slippery slope. The requirements for euthanasia under Dutch law are that patients
must ask to be euthanized, they must be fully informed of their medical condition,
suffering must be intolerable, and the process of carrying out the patients death wish must
be performed by a doctor. These stringent guidelines have created an environment where
2,300 individuals have found relief in the form of euthanasia, an number which represents
just 1.8 % of all deaths in the Netherlands. Only 1/3 of all requests for euthanasia are
honored by physicians, which is proof against the slippery slope argument. A study
published by the Dutch government in 1992 further dispels the slippery slope theory. It
reported that since euthanasia had been legalized, only 2 cases have been documented
where a patient was euthanized without request. In both cases the patient was suffering
severe pain, and was terminally ill. Given the large numbers of deaths from euthanasia,
this statistic seems to be very small in comparison. Also, in no instance has a patient been
put to death against his or her expressed or implied wish. This empirical evidence
concretely disproves the notion that voluntary euthanasia will somehow snowball to
involuntary euthanasia. It is also powerful proof that voluntary euthanasia can be carried
out legally and with no great harms to society or individuals.
The unsubstantiated claims of euthanasia opponents, many affirmative arguments
supporting the moral permissibility of euthanasia, and the successful Dutch experiment
with legalization all prove that euthanasia is a legitimate moral practice. If we do not
allow for individual autonomy in determining the scope and extent of medical treatment,
then we are sentencing many terminally ill patients to a final stage of life filled with misery
and wracked with unrelenting pain. Instead, the moral and ethical course of action is to
grant patients who request euthanasia the mercy and relief of a death with dignity.
patients right-to-die. Current legal statue prohibits any form of euthanasia, however, there
are many moral and ethical dilemmas concerning the controversy. For the purposes of this
essay, I will define euthanasia as the implementation of a decision that a person's life will
come to an end before it need stop. In other words, it is a life ending when it would
otherwise be prolonged. There is an important distinction between voluntary euthanasia
where the decision to terminate life coincides with the individuals wishes and involuntary
euthanasia where the individual concerned does not know about the decision and has not
approved it in advance. I will be dealing specifically with the concept of voluntary
euthanasia, for it seems intuitive that involuntary euthanasia is not only illegal but also
profoundly immoral. Opponents arguments against euthanasia which fail to substantiate
their claims, many proponents arguments highlighted by the right to autonomy, and
empirical examples of legalized euthanasia all prove the moral legitimacy of physician-
assisted-suicide.
Opponents of euthanasia generally point to three main arguments which I will
mention only for the purposes of refuting them. First, many cite the Hippocratic oath
which reads, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such
counsel" as a reason to oppose euthanasia. Clearly, the Hippocratic oath does condemn
the practice, however, I do not find this as reason enough to reject the moral permissibility
of euthanasia. If the premise of the oath is flawed (i.e., if it is morally permissible for a
physician to assist in suicide), then a physician should not be prohibited from assisting in
suicide simply because of an oath. Indeed, if it is proven (as will be done later in this
essay) that euthanasia is a moral way to end needless suffering, then doctors should be
obliged to fulfill their patients requests for early death. The second argument that
opponents of euthanasia cite is based on the Judeo-Christian ethic of human life being the
ultimate value of existence. This argument is vague at best. At the most well-explained
level, it says that human life is intrinsically valuable and should be preserved in every
instance (because human bodily life is the life of a person) thus euthanasia is wrong
because it is killing before life would naturally end. This argument is proven unsound in
two ways. First, I believe that human life is distinct from personhood. Many patients
requesting euthanasia have ceased to be persons because they are terminally ill and
incapable of enjoying the gift of existence. Thus many of these individuals ( and certainly
those in a vegetative state with a living will that requests euthanasia) are living lives that
are not intrinsically valuable. Second, I disagree with the notion that life is intrinsically
valuable and should be preserved in every instance. I believe that life is valuable only
inasmuch as it is the basis for rational decision-making. (This argument will be elaborated
upon later in the essay). Therefore, we respect the value of life by respecting a persons
autonomy and allowing them to willingly end their life. The final argument given by
opponents of euthanasia is the notion of a slippery slope in which legalized voluntary
euthanasia will snowball and begin to result in widespread involuntary euthanasia. The
basis for this reasoning is that under a system of voluntary euthanasia, doctors must make
the final determination of whether a person can be euthanized or not therefore allowing
them to decide if a patients life is "worth" living. Many feel that if doctors can do this to
competent people, it could snowball to incompetent patients and doctors may make
decisions to euthanize without the will of patients. However, I argue that the moral
permissibility of euthanasia depends on a patients voluntary consent. If a patient does not
expressly wish to die, then a doctor who kills a patient without the consent of that patient
would be acting immorally. From a legal standpoint, the request for euthanasia would have
to come first from the patient, which diminishes the likelihood of involuntary euthanasia
occurring. Given these two scenarios, the idea of a slippery slope is dispelled on both a
theoretical and a pragmatic level. Furthermore, empirical evidence that will be discussed
later disproves the notion of a slippery slope.
In addition to the responses to opponents claims, there are many reasons why
euthanasia is morally acceptable. The justifications for voluntary active euthanasia rest in
four main areas. First, society has a moral obligation to respect individual autonomy when
we can do so without harm to others and when doing so does not violate some other
moral obligation. This is because life is intrinsically valuable only as a result of its
necessity for decision-making and free will. Life without autonomy ceases to be of the
utmost value, rather, a persons right to choose his or her life (and death) course should be
the highest priority. This principle guarantees a persons right to have his or her own
decisions respected in determining medical treatment, including euthanasia. The second
argument for the moral acceptance of euthanasia rests on the premise of mercy and
compassion, two ideals which are essential to human dignity. In most cases when a person
requests euthanasia they are suffering unrelenting and continual pain, and there is no
reasonable possibility of substantial recovery. It is morally repugnant to watch another
person suffer through humiliating helplessness and constant pain when one could prevent
it. It is widely considered humane to put animals that are permanently physically impaired
to death, yet humans cannot currently receive the same mercy under the law, even when
they request it. When we are confronted with suffering which is wholly destructive in its
consequences and, as far as we can tell, could have no beneficial result, there is a moral
obligation to end it. The third affirmation of the moral legitimacy of euthanasia is that of
justice. Euthanasia allows for fairer distribution of medical resources in a society which
lacks sufficient resources to treat all of its people. Because we have an obligation to
relieve suffering, people have a right to whatever medical resources might be effective in
the treatment of their condition. However, the scarcity of resources ensures that not all
medical claims can be met, therefore a fair way to distribute medical resources must be
found. If treatment must be denied to some people with the result that they will die, then
it is better to deny it to those people who are medically unsalvageable and will die soon
with or without treatment. The final justification for euthanasia is that the burden of proof
for rejecting the morality of the practice should rest with its opponents. It is up to any
person or institution wanting to prevent an individual from doing something he or she
wants to do to provide sound reasoning which justifies interference. Since it has already
been proven that opponents arguments against euthanasia fail to substantiate their claim
that it should not occur, then the practice should be considered moral.
The Netherlands successful experiment with legalized voluntary euthanasia is
further proof that physician-assisted-suicide is a moral action. The Dutch legalized
euthanasia partly because they realize that the practice occurs frequently in the status quo
and is now entirely at the discretion of physicians. 85% of deaths in the United States
occur in hospitals or nursing homes; of those 70% involve withholding life-sustaining
treatment. This is certainly a form of euthanasia, yet it is uncontrolled and oftentimes
performed without the patient's knowledge. On the contrary, the Dutch system brings the
question of euthanasia into the open and allows for regulations which lessen the likelihood
of a slippery slope. The requirements for euthanasia under Dutch law are that patients
must ask to be euthanized, they must be fully informed of their medical condition,
suffering must be intolerable, and the process of carrying out the patients death wish must
be performed by a doctor. These stringent guidelines have created an environment where
2,300 individuals have found relief in the form of euthanasia, an number which represents
just 1.8 % of all deaths in the Netherlands. Only 1/3 of all requests for euthanasia are
honored by physicians, which is proof against the slippery slope argument. A study
published by the Dutch government in 1992 further dispels the slippery slope theory. It
reported that since euthanasia had been legalized, only 2 cases have been documented
where a patient was euthanized without request. In both cases the patient was suffering
severe pain, and was terminally ill. Given the large numbers of deaths from euthanasia,
this statistic seems to be very small in comparison. Also, in no instance has a patient been
put to death against his or her expressed or implied wish. This empirical evidence
concretely disproves the notion that voluntary euthanasia will somehow snowball to
involuntary euthanasia. It is also powerful proof that voluntary euthanasia can be carried
out legally and with no great harms to society or individuals.
The unsubstantiated claims of euthanasia opponents, many affirmative arguments
supporting the moral permissibility of euthanasia, and the successful Dutch experiment
with legalization all prove that euthanasia is a legitimate moral practice. If we do not
allow for individual autonomy in determining the scope and extent of medical treatment,
then we are sentencing many terminally ill patients to a final stage of life filled with misery
and wracked with unrelenting pain. Instead, the moral and ethical course of action is to
grant patients who request euthanasia the mercy and relief of a death with dignity.
Euthanasia 3
Euthanasia
Mark T. Maxwell
Running Head: Euthanasia
Abstract
This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective will favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective will favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia.
Thesis Statement
Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. Euthanasia is a merciful means to and end of long-term suffering. Euthanasia is a relatively new dilemma for the United States and has gained a bad reputation from negative media hype surrounding assisted suicides. Euthanasia has a purpose and should be evaluated as humanely filling a void created by our sometimes inhumane modern society.
Antithesis Statement
Euthanasia is nothing less than cold-blooded killing. Euthanasia cheapens life, even more so than the very divisive issue of abortion. Euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong and should be banned in these United States. Modern medicine has evolved by leaps and bounds recently, euthanasia resets these medical advances back by years and reduces today's Medical Doctors to administrators of death.
Euthanasia defined
The term Euthanasia is used generally to refer to an easy or painless death. Voluntary euthanasia involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. Passive or negative euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death-that is, allowing someone to die; active or positive euthanasia involves taking deliberate action to cause a death.
Euthanasia is often mistaken or associated with for assisted suicide, a distant cousin of euthanasia, in which a person wishes to commit suicide but feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for the death, depending on local laws. There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This paper targets euthanasia; pros and cons, not assisted suicide.
Thesis Argument That Euthanasia Should Be Accepted
Without doubt, modern dying has become fearsome. Doctors now possess the technologies and the skills to forestall natural death almost indefinitely. All too often, the terminally ill suffer needless pain and are kept alive without real hope, as families hold a harrowing deathwatch.
In ancient Greece and Rome it was permissible in some situations to help others die. For example, the Greek writer Plutarch mentioned that in Sparta, infanticide was practiced on children who lacked "health and vigor." Both Socrates and Plato sanctioned forms of euthanasia in certain cases. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an approved custom in several ancient societies .
Euthanasia has been accepted both legally and morally in various forms in many societies .
"There is no more profoundly personal decision, nor one which is closer to the heart of personal liberty, than the choice which a terminally ill person makes to end his or her suffering ...," U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein wrote (R-1).
Organizations supporting the legalization of voluntary euthanasia were established in Great Britain in 1935 and in the United States in 1938. They have gained some public support, but so far they have been unable to achieve their goal in either nation. In the last few decades, Western laws against passive and voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased (1).
The proeuthanasia, or "right to die," movement has received considerable encouragement by the passage of laws in 40 states by 1990, which allow legally competent individuals to make "living wills." These wills empower and instruct doctors to withhold life-support systems if the individuals become terminally ill .
Euthanasia continues to occur in all societies, including those in which it is held to be immoral and illegal. A medically assisted end to a meaningless and worthless "void" of an existence is both accepted and condoned by the medical profession.
In a Colorado survey, 60% of physicians stated that they have cared for patients for whom they believe active euthanasia would be justifiable, and 59% expressed a willingness to use lethal drugs in such cases if legal. In a study of 676 San Francisco physicians, 70% believed that patients with an incurable terminal illness should have the option of active euthanasia, and 45% would carry out such a request, if legal (35% were opposed). Nearly 90% of physicians in another study agreed that "sometimes it is appropriate to give pain medication to relieve suffering, even if it may hasten a patient's death."(R-2)
Antithesis Argument That Euthanasia Is Unacceptable
With the rise of organized religion, euthanasia became morally and ethically abhorrent. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all hold human life sacred and condemn euthanasia in any form . The American Medical Association continues to condemn assisted suicide .
Western laws have generally considered the act of helping someone to die a form of homicide subject to legal sanctions. Even a passive withholding of help to prevent death has frequently been severely punished .
And the Roman Catholic Church's newly released catechism says: ``Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder.'' (R-1).
The Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association recommends that the American Medical Association reject euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as being incompatible with the nature and purposes of the healing arts (R-2).
"When does the right to die become the obligation to die?" asks the Rev. Richard McCormick, professor of Christian ethics at Notre Dame University who spoke recently against assisted suicide at Fort Lauderdale's Holy Cross Hospital. "Imagine an 85-year-old grandmother" with the option of ordering a suicide dose from a doctor: "'Do they want me to ask for it now?' Physician-assisted suicide saves money. ... This is a flight from the challenge of social compassion." (R-1).
The issue of euthanasia is not a recent one. The Oath of Hippocrates is said to have originated in approximately the fifth century B.C. and, even then, it incorporated a specific pledge against physician-assisted suicide when it said, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone, even if asked."
What of the innocent bystanders? The family, friends or even foes of someone that elects to exercise their "right to die"? It is suggested that a person suffering from an incurable or terminal illness is not complete command of their mental faculties and thereby incapable of such an extraordinary decision. Surely a degraded mental capacity rules out realistic thinking with regard to survivors. How many "innocent bystanders" also pay the price of euthanasia?
Synthesis For Euthanasia
Euthanasia occurs in all societies, including those in which it is held to be immoral and illegal . Euthanasia occurs under the guise of secrecy in societies that secrecy is mandatory. The first priority for the care of patients facing severe pain as a result of a terminal illness or chronic condition should be the relief of their pain. Relieving the patient's psychosocial and other suffering is as important as relieving the patient's pain.
Western laws against passive and voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased, although serious moral and legal questions still exist . Some opponents of euthanasia have feared that the increasing success that doctors have had in transplanting human organs might lead to abuse of the practice of euthanasia. It is now generally understood, however, that physicians will not violate the rights of the dying donor in order to help preserve the life of the organ recipient .
Even though polls indicate most Americans support the right of sick people to end their pain through self-inflicted death, euthanasia is one of the more contentious aspects of the death-with-dignity movement .
"This is really one of the most fundamental abilities that a human being has to decide if he or she wants to die," says Meyer, who practiced radiology for 40 years (R-1).
Slightly more than half of the physicians surveyed in Washington State would approve the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances. A total of 938 physicians completed questionnaires about their attitudes toward euthanasia and assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide was described as prescribing medication and providing counseling to patients on overdosing to end their own lives. Euthanasia was defined as administering an overdose of medication at an ill patient's request. Forty-two percent of physicians indicated that they found euthanasia ethically acceptable under some circumstances. Fifty-four percent indicated that they believed euthanasia should be legal under certain circumstances .
Today, patients are entitled to opt for passive euthanasia; that is, to make free and informed choices to refuse life support. The controversy over active euthanasia, however, is likely to remain intense because of opposition from religious groups and many members of the medical profession .
The medical profession has generally been caught in the middle of the social controversies that rage over euthanasia. Government and religious groups as well as the medical profession itself agree that doctors are not required to use "extraordinary means" to prolong the life of the terminally ill .
The Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliment developed and approved the
following substantive and procedural guidelines, or "points" for Dutch
physicians to consider when practicing or administering Euthanasia:
Substantive Guidelines
(a) Euthanasia must be voluntary; the patient's request must be seriously considered and enduring.
(b) The patient must have adequate information about his or her medical condition, the prognosis, and alternative methods of treatment (though it is not required that the patient be terminally ill).
(c) The patient's suffering must be intolerable, in the patient's view, and must also be irreversible.
(d) There must be no reasonable alternatives for relieving the patient's suffering that are acceptable to the patient.
Procedural Guidelines
(e) Euthanasia may be performed only by a physician (though a nurse may assist the physician).
(f) The physician must consult with a second physician whose judgment can be expected to be independent.
(g) The physician must exercise due care in reviewing and verifying the patient's condition as well as in performing the euthanasia procedure itself.
(h) The relatives must be informed unless the patient does not wish
this.
(i) There should be a written record of the case.
(j) The case may not be reported as a natural death. (R-2).
Having choices, including having the legal right for help to die is what's important in preserving the basic democratic fabric of the United States of America. The issue of euthanasia is, by it's very nature, a very difficult and private choice. Euthanasia should remain exactly that; a choice; a choice that ought not be legislated or restricted by opposing forces or opinions.
(R-1) Assisted suicide: Helping terminally ill, or "quick fix" for intolerant society? (Originated from Knight-Ridder Newspapers) by Patty Shillington Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service June 15 '94 p0615
(R-2) Report of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association. (Transcript) v10 Issues in Law & Medicine Summer '94 p81-90
(R-3) "Euthanasia," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.
(R-4) Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. (Transcript) v10 Issues in Law & Medicine Summer '94 p91-97
(R-5) The New England Journal of Medicine July 14 '94 p89(6)
(R-6) Death on trial: the case of Dr. Kevorkian obscures critical issues - and dangers. (Jack Kevorkian) (Cover Story) by Joseph P. Shapiro il v116 U.S. News & World Report April 25 '94 p31
(R-7) Euthanasia and Medical Decisions Concerning the Ending of Life. by P.J. van der Maas and J.J.M. Delden
Mark T. Maxwell
Running Head: Euthanasia
Abstract
This paper will define Euthanasia and assisted suicide. Euthanasia is often confused with and associated with assisted suicide, definitions of the two are required. Two perspectives shall be presented in this paper. The first perspective will favor euthanasia or the "right to die," the second perspective will favor antieuthanasia, or the "right to live". Each perspective shall endeavor to clarify the legal, moral and ethical ramifications or aspects of euthanasia.
Thesis Statement
Euthanasia, also mercy killing, is the practice of ending a life so as to release an individual from an incurable disease or intolerable suffering. Euthanasia is a merciful means to and end of long-term suffering. Euthanasia is a relatively new dilemma for the United States and has gained a bad reputation from negative media hype surrounding assisted suicides. Euthanasia has a purpose and should be evaluated as humanely filling a void created by our sometimes inhumane modern society.
Antithesis Statement
Euthanasia is nothing less than cold-blooded killing. Euthanasia cheapens life, even more so than the very divisive issue of abortion. Euthanasia is morally and ethically wrong and should be banned in these United States. Modern medicine has evolved by leaps and bounds recently, euthanasia resets these medical advances back by years and reduces today's Medical Doctors to administrators of death.
Euthanasia defined
The term Euthanasia is used generally to refer to an easy or painless death. Voluntary euthanasia involves a request by the dying patient or that person's legal representative. Passive or negative euthanasia involves not doing something to prevent death-that is, allowing someone to die; active or positive euthanasia involves taking deliberate action to cause a death.
Euthanasia is often mistaken or associated with for assisted suicide, a distant cousin of euthanasia, in which a person wishes to commit suicide but feels unable to perform the act alone because of a physical disability or lack of knowledge about the most effective means. An individual who assists a suicide victim in accomplishing that goal may or may not be held responsible for the death, depending on local laws. There is a distinct difference between euthanasia and assisted suicide. This paper targets euthanasia; pros and cons, not assisted suicide.
Thesis Argument That Euthanasia Should Be Accepted
Without doubt, modern dying has become fearsome. Doctors now possess the technologies and the skills to forestall natural death almost indefinitely. All too often, the terminally ill suffer needless pain and are kept alive without real hope, as families hold a harrowing deathwatch.
In ancient Greece and Rome it was permissible in some situations to help others die. For example, the Greek writer Plutarch mentioned that in Sparta, infanticide was practiced on children who lacked "health and vigor." Both Socrates and Plato sanctioned forms of euthanasia in certain cases. Voluntary euthanasia for the elderly was an approved custom in several ancient societies .
Euthanasia has been accepted both legally and morally in various forms in many societies .
"There is no more profoundly personal decision, nor one which is closer to the heart of personal liberty, than the choice which a terminally ill person makes to end his or her suffering ...," U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein wrote (R-1).
Organizations supporting the legalization of voluntary euthanasia were established in Great Britain in 1935 and in the United States in 1938. They have gained some public support, but so far they have been unable to achieve their goal in either nation. In the last few decades, Western laws against passive and voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased (1).
The proeuthanasia, or "right to die," movement has received considerable encouragement by the passage of laws in 40 states by 1990, which allow legally competent individuals to make "living wills." These wills empower and instruct doctors to withhold life-support systems if the individuals become terminally ill .
Euthanasia continues to occur in all societies, including those in which it is held to be immoral and illegal. A medically assisted end to a meaningless and worthless "void" of an existence is both accepted and condoned by the medical profession.
In a Colorado survey, 60% of physicians stated that they have cared for patients for whom they believe active euthanasia would be justifiable, and 59% expressed a willingness to use lethal drugs in such cases if legal. In a study of 676 San Francisco physicians, 70% believed that patients with an incurable terminal illness should have the option of active euthanasia, and 45% would carry out such a request, if legal (35% were opposed). Nearly 90% of physicians in another study agreed that "sometimes it is appropriate to give pain medication to relieve suffering, even if it may hasten a patient's death."(R-2)
Antithesis Argument That Euthanasia Is Unacceptable
With the rise of organized religion, euthanasia became morally and ethically abhorrent. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all hold human life sacred and condemn euthanasia in any form . The American Medical Association continues to condemn assisted suicide .
Western laws have generally considered the act of helping someone to die a form of homicide subject to legal sanctions. Even a passive withholding of help to prevent death has frequently been severely punished .
And the Roman Catholic Church's newly released catechism says: ``Intentional euthanasia, whatever its forms or motives, is murder.'' (R-1).
The Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association recommends that the American Medical Association reject euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as being incompatible with the nature and purposes of the healing arts (R-2).
"When does the right to die become the obligation to die?" asks the Rev. Richard McCormick, professor of Christian ethics at Notre Dame University who spoke recently against assisted suicide at Fort Lauderdale's Holy Cross Hospital. "Imagine an 85-year-old grandmother" with the option of ordering a suicide dose from a doctor: "'Do they want me to ask for it now?' Physician-assisted suicide saves money. ... This is a flight from the challenge of social compassion." (R-1).
The issue of euthanasia is not a recent one. The Oath of Hippocrates is said to have originated in approximately the fifth century B.C. and, even then, it incorporated a specific pledge against physician-assisted suicide when it said, "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone, even if asked."
What of the innocent bystanders? The family, friends or even foes of someone that elects to exercise their "right to die"? It is suggested that a person suffering from an incurable or terminal illness is not complete command of their mental faculties and thereby incapable of such an extraordinary decision. Surely a degraded mental capacity rules out realistic thinking with regard to survivors. How many "innocent bystanders" also pay the price of euthanasia?
Synthesis For Euthanasia
Euthanasia occurs in all societies, including those in which it is held to be immoral and illegal . Euthanasia occurs under the guise of secrecy in societies that secrecy is mandatory. The first priority for the care of patients facing severe pain as a result of a terminal illness or chronic condition should be the relief of their pain. Relieving the patient's psychosocial and other suffering is as important as relieving the patient's pain.
Western laws against passive and voluntary euthanasia have slowly been eased, although serious moral and legal questions still exist . Some opponents of euthanasia have feared that the increasing success that doctors have had in transplanting human organs might lead to abuse of the practice of euthanasia. It is now generally understood, however, that physicians will not violate the rights of the dying donor in order to help preserve the life of the organ recipient .
Even though polls indicate most Americans support the right of sick people to end their pain through self-inflicted death, euthanasia is one of the more contentious aspects of the death-with-dignity movement .
"This is really one of the most fundamental abilities that a human being has to decide if he or she wants to die," says Meyer, who practiced radiology for 40 years (R-1).
Slightly more than half of the physicians surveyed in Washington State would approve the legalization of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia under certain circumstances. A total of 938 physicians completed questionnaires about their attitudes toward euthanasia and assisted suicide. Physician-assisted suicide was described as prescribing medication and providing counseling to patients on overdosing to end their own lives. Euthanasia was defined as administering an overdose of medication at an ill patient's request. Forty-two percent of physicians indicated that they found euthanasia ethically acceptable under some circumstances. Fifty-four percent indicated that they believed euthanasia should be legal under certain circumstances .
Today, patients are entitled to opt for passive euthanasia; that is, to make free and informed choices to refuse life support. The controversy over active euthanasia, however, is likely to remain intense because of opposition from religious groups and many members of the medical profession .
The medical profession has generally been caught in the middle of the social controversies that rage over euthanasia. Government and religious groups as well as the medical profession itself agree that doctors are not required to use "extraordinary means" to prolong the life of the terminally ill .
The Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliment developed and approved the
following substantive and procedural guidelines, or "points" for Dutch
physicians to consider when practicing or administering Euthanasia:
Substantive Guidelines
(a) Euthanasia must be voluntary; the patient's request must be seriously considered and enduring.
(b) The patient must have adequate information about his or her medical condition, the prognosis, and alternative methods of treatment (though it is not required that the patient be terminally ill).
(c) The patient's suffering must be intolerable, in the patient's view, and must also be irreversible.
(d) There must be no reasonable alternatives for relieving the patient's suffering that are acceptable to the patient.
Procedural Guidelines
(e) Euthanasia may be performed only by a physician (though a nurse may assist the physician).
(f) The physician must consult with a second physician whose judgment can be expected to be independent.
(g) The physician must exercise due care in reviewing and verifying the patient's condition as well as in performing the euthanasia procedure itself.
(h) The relatives must be informed unless the patient does not wish
this.
(i) There should be a written record of the case.
(j) The case may not be reported as a natural death. (R-2).
Having choices, including having the legal right for help to die is what's important in preserving the basic democratic fabric of the United States of America. The issue of euthanasia is, by it's very nature, a very difficult and private choice. Euthanasia should remain exactly that; a choice; a choice that ought not be legislated or restricted by opposing forces or opinions.
(R-1) Assisted suicide: Helping terminally ill, or "quick fix" for intolerant society? (Originated from Knight-Ridder Newspapers) by Patty Shillington Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service June 15 '94 p0615
(R-2) Report of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association. (Transcript) v10 Issues in Law & Medicine Summer '94 p81-90
(R-3) "Euthanasia," Microsoft (R) Encarta. Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1994 Funk & Wagnall's Corporation.
(R-4) Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. (Transcript) v10 Issues in Law & Medicine Summer '94 p91-97
(R-5) The New England Journal of Medicine July 14 '94 p89(6)
(R-6) Death on trial: the case of Dr. Kevorkian obscures critical issues - and dangers. (Jack Kevorkian) (Cover Story) by Joseph P. Shapiro il v116 U.S. News & World Report April 25 '94 p31
(R-7) Euthanasia and Medical Decisions Concerning the Ending of Life. by P.J. van der Maas and J.J.M. Delden
Euthanasia 2
Michael Wilson
FYSM 136-01
9/15/96
Professor Lee
Michael Wilson
FYSM 136-01
9/15/96
Professor Lee
Essay #1: Euthanasia
A long time ago, culture was universal and permanent. There was one set of beliefs, ideals, and norms, and these were the standard for all human beings in all places and all times. We, however, live in the modern world. Our ethics are not an inheritance of the past, completed and ready for universal application. We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia.
Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be. [Rachels, 56] My position is almost identical. I believe there are some instances in which euthanasia is immoral, but I believe it should unquestionably be legal. In the following paragraphs, I will display the position of the opposition to the legality of euthanasia as well as the position of the supporters. I shall attempt to prove that, yes, euthanasia should be legal.
There is a strong opposition against the legalization of euthanasia. The main argument against the legality of euthanasia is sometimes known as the slippery slope argument. People argue that if euthanasia was legally permitted, it would lead to a general decline in the respect for human life. It is professed that we would kill people in the beginning simply to put them out of extreme agony. This is the ideal. But the opposition states that the killing of people wouldn't stop here. The killing could perhaps escalate to mass murder of innocent victims. When would the killing stop? This is what scares the opponent.
The opponents argue that once something is accepted, we have no right to deny other similar practices. This is when doctors and patients would start taking advantage of the new law. Therefore, the first step should not be taken.
I disagree with this notion and believe that there would hardly be any abuse of the new law. I have formed three reasons why euthanasia ought to be legal. First, history tells us that mercy killers have generally been let off easy in court. In the case of Hans Florian, a man who shot his elderly wife to death because she had lost her mind to Alzheimer's disease, the grand jury refused to indict him. His argument was that he shot her because he feared that he might die first and then she would be left alone [Rachels, 57]. As in this case and numerous others, the killers are usually let off easy because of sympathetic jury members or judges. For this reason, euthanasia should be legal, for it goes along with current attitudes in the courtroom. Secondly, the constitution states that were are all allotted our certain unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since we have this right to life, it is our right to decide what we want to do with our lives, and no one else's right to tell us what to do. The third proponent to my reasoning is something called Mill's Principle. This principle states that people should be free to live their lives as they themselves think best, as long as they are not doing harm to others [Merkov, 21]. Also, this principle only applies to people who are competent and can make rational decisions. For if one is not in their right frame of mind, they could make an ill-fated decision on their life.
Euthanasia should be legalized because it is inhumane to allow people to continue suffering when they request release by rapid and painless termination of life. Patients frequently suffer agony from pain that is uncontrollable. Administration of death is the only effective release from suffering in these situations.
If a person is in excruciating pain day and night, or if they are living vegetables in a permanent and unrelenting comatose with no hope for life, shouldn't they be allowed to end their lives legally. In ending the patient's life, you put an end not only to their agony, but the agony of their families and friends who must watch them suffer. None of this would be possible without the legalization of euthanasia. Moreover, it would put less pressure on family members knowing that the act was committed legally.
In conclusion, the advantages of legalizing euthanasia outweigh the advantages of illegalization.
It is highly unlikely that the legalization would lead to an over abuse of the rule. Of course there will always be some abusers, but not enough to cause panic. Once again, it is one's individual right to decide what he or she wishes to do with their lives. I believe it is no one else's business to have the final say in what you do with your life. If a person is on their death bed and wishes to end there existence before matters complicate, they should legally have that right.
A long time ago, culture was universal and permanent. There was one set of beliefs, ideals, and norms, and these were the standard for all human beings in all places and all times. We, however, live in the modern world. Our ethics are not an inheritance of the past, completed and ready for universal application. We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia.
Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be. [Rachels, 56] My position is almost identical. I believe there are some instances in which euthanasia is immoral, but I believe it should unquestionably be legal. In the following paragraphs, I will display the position of the opposition to the legality of euthanasia as well as the position of the supporters. I shall attempt to prove that, yes, euthanasia should be legal.
There is a strong opposition against the legalization of euthanasia. The main argument against the legality of euthanasia is sometimes known as the slippery slope argument. People argue that if euthanasia was legally permitted, it would lead to a general decline in the respect for human life. It is professed that we would kill people in the beginning simply to put them out of extreme agony. This is the ideal. But the opposition states that the killing of people wouldn't stop here. The killing could perhaps escalate to mass murder of innocent victims. When would the killing stop? This is what scares the opponent.
The opponents argue that once something is accepted, we have no right to deny other similar practices. This is when doctors and patients would start taking advantage of the new law. Therefore, the first step should not be taken.
I disagree with this notion and believe that there would hardly be any abuse of the new law. I have formed three reasons why euthanasia ought to be legal. First, history tells us that mercy killers have generally been let off easy in court. In the case of Hans Florian, a man who shot his elderly wife to death because she had lost her mind to Alzheimer's disease, the grand jury refused to indict him. His argument was that he shot her because he feared that he might die first and then she would be left alone [Rachels, 57]. As in this case and numerous others, the killers are usually let off easy because of sympathetic jury members or judges. For this reason, euthanasia should be legal, for it goes along with current attitudes in the courtroom. Secondly, the constitution states that were are all allotted our certain unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since we have this right to life, it is our right to decide what we want to do with our lives, and no one else's right to tell us what to do. The third proponent to my reasoning is something called Mill's Principle. This principle states that people should be free to live their lives as they themselves think best, as long as they are not doing harm to others [Merkov, 21]. Also, this principle only applies to people who are competent and can make rational decisions. For if one is not in their right frame of mind, they could make an ill-fated decision on their life.
Euthanasia should be legalized because it is inhumane to allow people to continue suffering when they request release by rapid and painless termination of life. Patients frequently suffer agony from pain that is uncontrollable. Administration of death is the only effective release from suffering in these situatio
FYSM 136-01
9/15/96
Professor Lee
Michael Wilson
FYSM 136-01
9/15/96
Professor Lee
Essay #1: Euthanasia
A long time ago, culture was universal and permanent. There was one set of beliefs, ideals, and norms, and these were the standard for all human beings in all places and all times. We, however, live in the modern world. Our ethics are not an inheritance of the past, completed and ready for universal application. We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia.
Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be. [Rachels, 56] My position is almost identical. I believe there are some instances in which euthanasia is immoral, but I believe it should unquestionably be legal. In the following paragraphs, I will display the position of the opposition to the legality of euthanasia as well as the position of the supporters. I shall attempt to prove that, yes, euthanasia should be legal.
There is a strong opposition against the legalization of euthanasia. The main argument against the legality of euthanasia is sometimes known as the slippery slope argument. People argue that if euthanasia was legally permitted, it would lead to a general decline in the respect for human life. It is professed that we would kill people in the beginning simply to put them out of extreme agony. This is the ideal. But the opposition states that the killing of people wouldn't stop here. The killing could perhaps escalate to mass murder of innocent victims. When would the killing stop? This is what scares the opponent.
The opponents argue that once something is accepted, we have no right to deny other similar practices. This is when doctors and patients would start taking advantage of the new law. Therefore, the first step should not be taken.
I disagree with this notion and believe that there would hardly be any abuse of the new law. I have formed three reasons why euthanasia ought to be legal. First, history tells us that mercy killers have generally been let off easy in court. In the case of Hans Florian, a man who shot his elderly wife to death because she had lost her mind to Alzheimer's disease, the grand jury refused to indict him. His argument was that he shot her because he feared that he might die first and then she would be left alone [Rachels, 57]. As in this case and numerous others, the killers are usually let off easy because of sympathetic jury members or judges. For this reason, euthanasia should be legal, for it goes along with current attitudes in the courtroom. Secondly, the constitution states that were are all allotted our certain unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since we have this right to life, it is our right to decide what we want to do with our lives, and no one else's right to tell us what to do. The third proponent to my reasoning is something called Mill's Principle. This principle states that people should be free to live their lives as they themselves think best, as long as they are not doing harm to others [Merkov, 21]. Also, this principle only applies to people who are competent and can make rational decisions. For if one is not in their right frame of mind, they could make an ill-fated decision on their life.
Euthanasia should be legalized because it is inhumane to allow people to continue suffering when they request release by rapid and painless termination of life. Patients frequently suffer agony from pain that is uncontrollable. Administration of death is the only effective release from suffering in these situations.
If a person is in excruciating pain day and night, or if they are living vegetables in a permanent and unrelenting comatose with no hope for life, shouldn't they be allowed to end their lives legally. In ending the patient's life, you put an end not only to their agony, but the agony of their families and friends who must watch them suffer. None of this would be possible without the legalization of euthanasia. Moreover, it would put less pressure on family members knowing that the act was committed legally.
In conclusion, the advantages of legalizing euthanasia outweigh the advantages of illegalization.
It is highly unlikely that the legalization would lead to an over abuse of the rule. Of course there will always be some abusers, but not enough to cause panic. Once again, it is one's individual right to decide what he or she wishes to do with their lives. I believe it is no one else's business to have the final say in what you do with your life. If a person is on their death bed and wishes to end there existence before matters complicate, they should legally have that right.
A long time ago, culture was universal and permanent. There was one set of beliefs, ideals, and norms, and these were the standard for all human beings in all places and all times. We, however, live in the modern world. Our ethics are not an inheritance of the past, completed and ready for universal application. We are in the situation of having to form our own beliefs and meanings of life. This struggle is now obvious in the contemporary discussions of euthanasia.
Of the controversial discussions involving euthanasia, the question of legalization is an often argued one. Whether euthanasia ought to be illegal is different from the question of whether it is immoral. Some people believe that even if euthanasia is immoral, it still should not be prohibited by law, since if a patient wants to die, that is strictly a personal affair, regardless of how foolish or immoral the desire might be. [Rachels, 56] My position is almost identical. I believe there are some instances in which euthanasia is immoral, but I believe it should unquestionably be legal. In the following paragraphs, I will display the position of the opposition to the legality of euthanasia as well as the position of the supporters. I shall attempt to prove that, yes, euthanasia should be legal.
There is a strong opposition against the legalization of euthanasia. The main argument against the legality of euthanasia is sometimes known as the slippery slope argument. People argue that if euthanasia was legally permitted, it would lead to a general decline in the respect for human life. It is professed that we would kill people in the beginning simply to put them out of extreme agony. This is the ideal. But the opposition states that the killing of people wouldn't stop here. The killing could perhaps escalate to mass murder of innocent victims. When would the killing stop? This is what scares the opponent.
The opponents argue that once something is accepted, we have no right to deny other similar practices. This is when doctors and patients would start taking advantage of the new law. Therefore, the first step should not be taken.
I disagree with this notion and believe that there would hardly be any abuse of the new law. I have formed three reasons why euthanasia ought to be legal. First, history tells us that mercy killers have generally been let off easy in court. In the case of Hans Florian, a man who shot his elderly wife to death because she had lost her mind to Alzheimer's disease, the grand jury refused to indict him. His argument was that he shot her because he feared that he might die first and then she would be left alone [Rachels, 57]. As in this case and numerous others, the killers are usually let off easy because of sympathetic jury members or judges. For this reason, euthanasia should be legal, for it goes along with current attitudes in the courtroom. Secondly, the constitution states that were are all allotted our certain unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Since we have this right to life, it is our right to decide what we want to do with our lives, and no one else's right to tell us what to do. The third proponent to my reasoning is something called Mill's Principle. This principle states that people should be free to live their lives as they themselves think best, as long as they are not doing harm to others [Merkov, 21]. Also, this principle only applies to people who are competent and can make rational decisions. For if one is not in their right frame of mind, they could make an ill-fated decision on their life.
Euthanasia should be legalized because it is inhumane to allow people to continue suffering when they request release by rapid and painless termination of life. Patients frequently suffer agony from pain that is uncontrollable. Administration of death is the only effective release from suffering in these situatio
Ethics in the workplace
Ethics in Business
>From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be a
very lucrative proposition. In general, a stream of orders keep coming in,
revenue increases and the company grows in the aggregate. The obvious
downfalls to working in this manner is both higher quality expected as
well as the extensive research and documentation required for government
contracts. If a part fails to perform correctly it can cause minor
glitches as well as problems that can carry serious repercussions, such as
in the National Semiconductor case. When both the culpable component and
company are found, the question arises of how extensive these
repercussions should be. Is the company as an entity liable or do you look
into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective
one would have to look at the mitigating factors of both the employees and
their superiors along with the role of others in the failure of these
components. Next you would have to analyze the final ruling from a
corporate perspective and then we must examine the macro issue of
corporate responsibility in order to attempt to find a resolution for
cases like these.
The first mitigating factor involved in the National Semiconductor
case is the uncertainty, on the part of the employees, on the duties that
they were assigned. It is plausible that during the testing procedure, an
employee couldnt distinguish which parts they were to test under
government standards and commercial standards. In some cases they might
have even been misinformed on the final consumers of the products that
they tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of the employees would fully
excuse them from any moral responsibility for any damage that may result
from their work. Whether it is decided that an employees is fully excused,
or is given some moral responsibility, would have to be looked at on an
individual basis.
The second mitigating factor is the duress or threats that an
employee might suffer if they do not follow through with their assignment.
After the bogus testing was completed in the National Semiconductor labs,
the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that
the parts had surpassed the governmental testing standards. From a legal
and ethical standpoint, both the testers and the writers of the reports
were merely acting as agents on direct orders from a superior. This was
also the case when the plant in Singapore refused to falsify the documents
and were later falsified by the employees at the have California plant
before being submitted to the approval committees (Velazquez, 53). The
writers of the reports were well aware of the situation yet they acted in
this manner on the instruction of a supervisor. Acting in an ethical
manner becomes a secondary priority in this type of environment. As stated
by Alan Reder, . . . if they [the employees] feel they will suffer
retribution, if they report a problem, they arent too likely to open their
mouths. (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified
they would come under questioning and perhaps their employment would go
into jeopardy. Although working under these conditions does not fully
excuse an employees from moral fault, it does start the divulging process
for determining the order of the chain of command of superiors and it
helps to narrow down the person or department that issued the original
request for the unethical acts.
The third mitigating factor is one that perhaps encompasses the
majority of the employees in the National Semiconductor case. We have to
balance the direct involvement that each employee had with the defective
parts. Thus, it has to be made clear that many of the employees did not
have a direct duty with the testing departments or with the parts that
eventually failed. Even employees, or sub-contractors, that were directly
involved with the production were not aware of the incompetence on the
part of the testing department. For example, the electrical engineer that
designed the defective computer chip could act in good faith that it would
be tested to ensure that it did indeed meet the required government
endurance tests. Also, for the employees that handled the part after the
testing process, they were dealing with what they believed to be a
component that met every governmental standard. If it was not tested
properly, and did eventually fail, isnt the testing department more
morally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that was
in charge of installing the chip? Plus, in large corporations there may be
several testing departments and is some cases one may be held more
responsible than another depending on their involvement. A process like
this can serve the dual purpose of finding irresponsible employees as well
as those that are morally excused.
The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is the
gauging of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by this product.
Since National Semiconductor was repeatedly being reinstated to the listed
of approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the level
of seriousness, in the opinion of For the contractor approval committees,
is not of monumental importance. Yet one has to wonder how this case
would have been different if the lack of testing did cause the loss of
life in either a domestic or foreign military setting. Perhaps the
repercussions would have come faster much more stringent. The fact that
National Semiconductor did not cause a death does not make them a safe
company. They are still to be held responsible for any errors that their
products cause, no matter the magnitude.
As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility,
mitigating factors and excusing factors, they would argue that the entity
of the corporation as a whole should be held responsible. The executives
within a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of the
employees responsible into a public forum. A company should be reprimanded
and be left alone to carry out its own internal investigation and
repercussions. From a business law perspective this is the ideal case
since a corporation is defined as being a separate legal entity.
Furthermore, the opposition would argue that this resolution would benefit
both the company and the government since it would not inconvenience
either party. The original resolution in the National Semiconductor case
was along these lines. The government permanently removed National from
its approved contractors list and then National set out to untangle the
web of culpability within its own confines. This allowed a relatively
quick resolution as well as the ideal scenario for National Semiconductor.
In response, one could argue that the entity of a corporation has
no morals or even a concept of the word, it is only as moral and ethical
as the employees that work in that entity. All of the employees, including
top ranking executives are working towards advancing the entity known as
their corporation (Capitman, 117). All employees, including the
sub-contractors and assembly line workers, are in some part morally
responsible because they should have been clear on their employment duties
and they all should have been aware of which parts were intended for
government use. Ambiguity is not an excusing factor of moral
responsibility for the workers. Also, the fact that some employees failed
to act in an ethical manner gives even more moral responsibility to that
employee. While some are definitely more morally responsible than others,
every employee has some burden of weight in this case. In fact, when the
government reached a final resolution, they decided to further impose
repercussions and certain employees of National Semiconductor were banned
from future work in any government office (Velazquez, 54).
Looking at the case from the standpoint of National Semiconductor,
the outcome was favorable considering the alternate steps that the
government could taken. As explained before, it is ideal for a company to
be able to conduct its own investigation as well as its own punishments.
After all, it would be best for a company to determine what specific
departments are responsible rather than having a court of law impose a
burden on every employee in its corporation. Yet, since there are ethical
issues of dishonesty and secrecy involved, National Semiconductor should
have conducted a thorough analysis of their employees as well as their own
practices. It is through efforts like these that a corporation can raise
the ethical standard of everyone in their organization.
This case brings into light the whole issue of corporate
responsibility. The two sides that must ultimately be balanced are the
self interests of the company, with main goal of maximum profit, and the
impacts that a corporation can cause on society (Sawyer, 78). To further
strengthen this need, one could argue that there are very few business
decisions that do not affect society in way or another. In fact, with the
plethora of corporations, society is being affected on various fronts;
everything from water contamination to air bag safety is a concern. The
biggest problem that all of us must contend with is that every decision
that a business makes is gauged by the financial responsibility to their
corporation instead of their social responsibility to the local community,
and in some cases, the international community. This was pointed out on
various occasions as the main reason why National Semiconductor falsified
their reports. The cost that the full tests would incur did not outweigh
their profit margins. Their business sense lead them to do what all
companies want . . . maximum profit. In the opinion of the executives,
they were acting in a sensible manner. After all, no executive wants to
think of themselves as morally irresponsible. (Capitman, 118).
The question that naturally arises, in debating corporate
responsibility, is what types of checks and balances can be employed
within a company to ensure that a corporation and all of its agents act in
an ethical manner. Taking the example of the National Semiconductor case,
one can notice many failures in moral responsibility. National
Semiconductor would have to review its employees, particularly the
supervisors, for basic ethical values such as honesty. example, ultimately
it was the widespread falsification of the testing documentation that
caused the downfall of National Semiconductor, not the integrity of their
components. In the synopsis of the case it is never mentioned that the
employees initiated this idea, it would seem that it was the supervisors
that gave the order to falsify the
>From a business perspective, working under government contracts can be a
very lucrative proposition. In general, a stream of orders keep coming in,
revenue increases and the company grows in the aggregate. The obvious
downfalls to working in this manner is both higher quality expected as
well as the extensive research and documentation required for government
contracts. If a part fails to perform correctly it can cause minor
glitches as well as problems that can carry serious repercussions, such as
in the National Semiconductor case. When both the culpable component and
company are found, the question arises of how extensive these
repercussions should be. Is the company as an entity liable or do you look
into individual employees within that company? From an ethical perspective
one would have to look at the mitigating factors of both the employees and
their superiors along with the role of others in the failure of these
components. Next you would have to analyze the final ruling from a
corporate perspective and then we must examine the macro issue of
corporate responsibility in order to attempt to find a resolution for
cases like these.
The first mitigating factor involved in the National Semiconductor
case is the uncertainty, on the part of the employees, on the duties that
they were assigned. It is plausible that during the testing procedure, an
employee couldnt distinguish which parts they were to test under
government standards and commercial standards. In some cases they might
have even been misinformed on the final consumers of the products that
they tested. In fact, ignorance on the part of the employees would fully
excuse them from any moral responsibility for any damage that may result
from their work. Whether it is decided that an employees is fully excused,
or is given some moral responsibility, would have to be looked at on an
individual basis.
The second mitigating factor is the duress or threats that an
employee might suffer if they do not follow through with their assignment.
After the bogus testing was completed in the National Semiconductor labs,
the documentation department also had to falsify documents stating that
the parts had surpassed the governmental testing standards. From a legal
and ethical standpoint, both the testers and the writers of the reports
were merely acting as agents on direct orders from a superior. This was
also the case when the plant in Singapore refused to falsify the documents
and were later falsified by the employees at the have California plant
before being submitted to the approval committees (Velazquez, 53). The
writers of the reports were well aware of the situation yet they acted in
this manner on the instruction of a supervisor. Acting in an ethical
manner becomes a secondary priority in this type of environment. As stated
by Alan Reder, . . . if they [the employees] feel they will suffer
retribution, if they report a problem, they arent too likely to open their
mouths. (113). The workers knew that if the reports were not falsified
they would come under questioning and perhaps their employment would go
into jeopardy. Although working under these conditions does not fully
excuse an employees from moral fault, it does start the divulging process
for determining the order of the chain of command of superiors and it
helps to narrow down the person or department that issued the original
request for the unethical acts.
The third mitigating factor is one that perhaps encompasses the
majority of the employees in the National Semiconductor case. We have to
balance the direct involvement that each employee had with the defective
parts. Thus, it has to be made clear that many of the employees did not
have a direct duty with the testing departments or with the parts that
eventually failed. Even employees, or sub-contractors, that were directly
involved with the production were not aware of the incompetence on the
part of the testing department. For example, the electrical engineer that
designed the defective computer chip could act in good faith that it would
be tested to ensure that it did indeed meet the required government
endurance tests. Also, for the employees that handled the part after the
testing process, they were dealing with what they believed to be a
component that met every governmental standard. If it was not tested
properly, and did eventually fail, isnt the testing department more
morally responsible than the designer or the assembly line worker that was
in charge of installing the chip? Plus, in large corporations there may be
several testing departments and is some cases one may be held more
responsible than another depending on their involvement. A process like
this can serve the dual purpose of finding irresponsible employees as well
as those that are morally excused.
The fourth mitigating factor in cases of this nature is the
gauging of the seriousness of the fault or error caused by this product.
Since National Semiconductor was repeatedly being reinstated to the listed
of approved government contractors, one can safely assume that the level
of seriousness, in the opinion of For the contractor approval committees,
is not of monumental importance. Yet one has to wonder how this case
would have been different if the lack of testing did cause the loss of
life in either a domestic or foreign military setting. Perhaps the
repercussions would have come faster much more stringent. The fact that
National Semiconductor did not cause a death does not make them a safe
company. They are still to be held responsible for any errors that their
products cause, no matter the magnitude.
As for the opposition to the delegating of moral responsibility,
mitigating factors and excusing factors, they would argue that the entity
of the corporation as a whole should be held responsible. The executives
within a corporation should not be forced to bring out all of the
employees responsible into a public forum. A company should be reprimanded
and be left alone to carry out its own internal investigation and
repercussions. From a business law perspective this is the ideal case
since a corporation is defined as being a separate legal entity.
Furthermore, the opposition would argue that this resolution would benefit
both the company and the government since it would not inconvenience
either party. The original resolution in the National Semiconductor case
was along these lines. The government permanently removed National from
its approved contractors list and then National set out to untangle the
web of culpability within its own confines. This allowed a relatively
quick resolution as well as the ideal scenario for National Semiconductor.
In response, one could argue that the entity of a corporation has
no morals or even a concept of the word, it is only as moral and ethical
as the employees that work in that entity. All of the employees, including
top ranking executives are working towards advancing the entity known as
their corporation (Capitman, 117). All employees, including the
sub-contractors and assembly line workers, are in some part morally
responsible because they should have been clear on their employment duties
and they all should have been aware of which parts were intended for
government use. Ambiguity is not an excusing factor of moral
responsibility for the workers. Also, the fact that some employees failed
to act in an ethical manner gives even more moral responsibility to that
employee. While some are definitely more morally responsible than others,
every employee has some burden of weight in this case. In fact, when the
government reached a final resolution, they decided to further impose
repercussions and certain employees of National Semiconductor were banned
from future work in any government office (Velazquez, 54).
Looking at the case from the standpoint of National Semiconductor,
the outcome was favorable considering the alternate steps that the
government could taken. As explained before, it is ideal for a company to
be able to conduct its own investigation as well as its own punishments.
After all, it would be best for a company to determine what specific
departments are responsible rather than having a court of law impose a
burden on every employee in its corporation. Yet, since there are ethical
issues of dishonesty and secrecy involved, National Semiconductor should
have conducted a thorough analysis of their employees as well as their own
practices. It is through efforts like these that a corporation can raise
the ethical standard of everyone in their organization.
This case brings into light the whole issue of corporate
responsibility. The two sides that must ultimately be balanced are the
self interests of the company, with main goal of maximum profit, and the
impacts that a corporation can cause on society (Sawyer, 78). To further
strengthen this need, one could argue that there are very few business
decisions that do not affect society in way or another. In fact, with the
plethora of corporations, society is being affected on various fronts;
everything from water contamination to air bag safety is a concern. The
biggest problem that all of us must contend with is that every decision
that a business makes is gauged by the financial responsibility to their
corporation instead of their social responsibility to the local community,
and in some cases, the international community. This was pointed out on
various occasions as the main reason why National Semiconductor falsified
their reports. The cost that the full tests would incur did not outweigh
their profit margins. Their business sense lead them to do what all
companies want . . . maximum profit. In the opinion of the executives,
they were acting in a sensible manner. After all, no executive wants to
think of themselves as morally irresponsible. (Capitman, 118).
The question that naturally arises, in debating corporate
responsibility, is what types of checks and balances can be employed
within a company to ensure that a corporation and all of its agents act in
an ethical manner. Taking the example of the National Semiconductor case,
one can notice many failures in moral responsibility. National
Semiconductor would have to review its employees, particularly the
supervisors, for basic ethical values such as honesty. example, ultimately
it was the widespread falsification of the testing documentation that
caused the downfall of National Semiconductor, not the integrity of their
components. In the synopsis of the case it is never mentioned that the
employees initiated this idea, it would seem that it was the supervisors
that gave the order to falsify the
Enlightened Philosophers
Enlightenment -- -The Light Bulb of the 1700's
Throughout history many people have changed society with their ideas and actions. Two philosophers whose ideas and actions changed society are Voltaire and John Lock. Martin Luther and Galileo also changed society.
John Lock and Voltaire both fought for basic human rights. Voltaire fought for basic religious freedom. He claimed that if god created the Catholic religion and god loves all people, then why does the Catholic religion have the right to torment other religions. As a result of this, Voltaire was exiled. John Lock also fought for human rights. He thought that government should protect the people. John Locke and Voltaire both spoke against a major power. Voltaire spoke against the church while Locke spoke against the government. Thus, change began occurring in both the church and government. John Locke and Voltaire changed society, because now people were beginning to challenge authority. John Locke influenced Thomas Jefferson because Thomas Jefferson believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Martin Luther and Galileo both disagreed with certain things that the church believed in. Martin Luther said that the only way to atone for your sins were through prayer and contrition. In his 95 Thesis he established that salvation is within oneself and that individual faith in God is very important .But the church did not see it that way. The church believed that the only way to atone for your sins were through indulgences. Indulgences were paying for the removal of your sins. Martin Luther was later excommunicated from the church. Galileo also disagreed with certain things that the church believed in. Galileo proved Aristotle's theory wrong about gravity. One night during dinner, Galileo picked up two pieces of fruit of unequal size. He then dropped them and established that they dropped at the same rate. The church had believed Aristotle's theory. Aristotle said that the two pieces of fruit of unequal size would drop at different rates. Although his theory might have been correct, he never proved it. As a result of this, Galileo was put on trial. Both Martin Luther and Galileo spoke against the church. They changed and influenced the future of society because now people began speaking against the church or a major authority.
So, as you can see from this essay, the thoughts of John Lock and Voltaire are very similar to those of Martin Luther and Galileo. All four of these people spoke against a major power.
Throughout history many people have changed society with their ideas and actions. Two philosophers whose ideas and actions changed society are Voltaire and John Lock. Martin Luther and Galileo also changed society.
John Lock and Voltaire both fought for basic human rights. Voltaire fought for basic religious freedom. He claimed that if god created the Catholic religion and god loves all people, then why does the Catholic religion have the right to torment other religions. As a result of this, Voltaire was exiled. John Lock also fought for human rights. He thought that government should protect the people. John Locke and Voltaire both spoke against a major power. Voltaire spoke against the church while Locke spoke against the government. Thus, change began occurring in both the church and government. John Locke and Voltaire changed society, because now people were beginning to challenge authority. John Locke influenced Thomas Jefferson because Thomas Jefferson believed in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Martin Luther and Galileo both disagreed with certain things that the church believed in. Martin Luther said that the only way to atone for your sins were through prayer and contrition. In his 95 Thesis he established that salvation is within oneself and that individual faith in God is very important .But the church did not see it that way. The church believed that the only way to atone for your sins were through indulgences. Indulgences were paying for the removal of your sins. Martin Luther was later excommunicated from the church. Galileo also disagreed with certain things that the church believed in. Galileo proved Aristotle's theory wrong about gravity. One night during dinner, Galileo picked up two pieces of fruit of unequal size. He then dropped them and established that they dropped at the same rate. The church had believed Aristotle's theory. Aristotle said that the two pieces of fruit of unequal size would drop at different rates. Although his theory might have been correct, he never proved it. As a result of this, Galileo was put on trial. Both Martin Luther and Galileo spoke against the church. They changed and influenced the future of society because now people began speaking against the church or a major authority.
So, as you can see from this essay, the thoughts of John Lock and Voltaire are very similar to those of Martin Luther and Galileo. All four of these people spoke against a major power.
Emily Dickinsons Female Transcendentalist Views
The early 19th century ideas of transcendentalism, which were introduced by Ralph Emerson and David Thoreau, where man as an individual becomes spiritually consumed with nature and himself through experience are contrasted by Emily Dickinson, who chose to branch off this path by showing that a transcendentalist experience could be achieved through imagination alone. These three monumental writers set the boundaries for this new realm of thought. Although these writers ideas were not similar, they all followed the simple idea that "the universe is composed of Nature and the Soul" . The male perspective seen through the works of Thoreau and Emerson, where nature "refers to essences unchanged by man; the air, the river, the leaf" , is revised and satirized by Dickinson's statement that "Of all the Souls that stand create-, I have elected- One" . Dickinson's works were meant to taunt society by showing how a woman, ironically trapped in her "natural" surroundings of the home, could obtain as much power, if not more than any male writer. This ironic revisions of ideas is directed at all male transcendentalists and figures in society.
Both Ralph Emerson and David Thoreau used societies stereotype of the true male environment, "nature", to draw their power and write from their experiences. Experience was the most important factor to these writers. The ability "to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account in my next excursion" was the basis of all their writings. "To get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the whole world" was their goal behind all their writings. They did not use their power of writing in order to gain a transcendentalist experience, but rather to record them. Both Emerson and Thoreau chose to contact their true natural surroundings, and experience time alone in the "woods". By being "in solitude", it brought forth a conciseness that "all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence" .
Mans views of nature being rightfully his, to do with what he wants, is harshly contrasted by Emerson, who feels that "Nature sais,-He is my creature" . Emerson felt that man, corrupted by society, can over power the fate of over looking his true meaning. Escaping from the wheel of society into "the woods, is perpetual youth". By living in the woods, he found that fusing nature with soul, one can accomplish anything.
Emerson felt that nature was an extension of five of his senses, where he could feel the tree moving in the wind as if it was his own body. He stressed the theme of "having intercourse with heaven and earth", or interlacing your body and soul with nature. But, of all five senses, he stressed vision the most. Beauty can only be accomplished through the gate way of the eye, which is where most experiences are derived from. "The eye is the best of artists" , and has the power to display "the simple perception of natural forms" , which is where true beauty comes form. "Nature satisfies the soul purely by its loveliness" . By becoming "a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing. I see all" .
Being self reliant on oneself, following the idea that "Man is his own star" , Emerson displays his transcendentalist idea that applies to anyone who would like to follow it. The importance of flowing with nature, and excepting what you are is stressed in Emerson's self-reliance. By following the modo "Ne te quæsiveris extra" , Emerson completely committed himself to "nature". By letting it become part of his soul, he used its power to enable him to transcend into the identity of anything or anyone he would like. This idea is important to Emerson because it transforms "the tradesman, the attorney comes out of the din and craft of the street, and sees the sky and the woods, and is a man again" . Looking at himself as an individual, not as a number lost in a sea of people walking down a street, enabled Emerson to draw power to himself, where he did not have to rely on anyone or anything. He became his own deity, his own master, and his self owner. Emerson contained the ability "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart, is true for all men" , and that in itself is a philosophy which made him stand out from many, and made him an individual.
Emerson clearly states in Nature, being in your natural surrounding, the wilderness, is the key to happiness. But fails to recognize that not all human's natural surroundings are the "woods". Although he does admit that a true transcendentalist "does not reside in nature, but in man, or in a harmony of both" , he still focuses on a transcendentalist being in tune with nature. Emerson feels that transcendentalism must come from experience in the wilderness, and then through intellect.
David Thoreau also used "nature" for an escape from the wheel of society, where he "went into the woods" in order "to live deliberately". The woods is where the soul and nature combine to be one. Thoreau ideas were the foundations of transcendentalism, where Emerson, and any other transcendentalist built off. Thoreau's works were more politically centered than of Emerson's, but followed the same fundamentals that Emerson held in mind.
Thoreau made his trek into the "woods" in order to escape the machine, and leave behind society in order to prove that one can live with simplicity, and does not have to rely on society in order to provide his needs. Thoreau made his escape to Walden pond, where he composed one of his works, Life in the Woods. Through his experiences with nature, he questioned himself, "why should we live with such hurry and waste of life" ? The formulation of these questions clarified his thoughts to produce his ideas on transcendentalism. One should live there life as an individual, and not be weary the mob around him. "Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises" ? Thoreau was much more concerned with his experiences around him. Nature, for him, was a renewal of the soul, where he could confide in. Thoreau was also critical of mans progress, becoming more and more machine like. "Most of the luxuries and many of the so-called comforts of life are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind" . Simplicity was the only way Thoreau found hid way back to the true "nature" of man. He viewed his life as a man who "does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer" , and no one could challenge that or take that away from him. All of his power was drawn from "nature", the nature of a true man, where he could transcend to any point and become anything that he wanted.
In contrast to these two male writers, Emily Dickinson proved that transcendentalism can be achieved with out the element of experience, but rather just using imagination and the power of intellect to accomplish her goals. She used many transcendentalist ideas in her writing, but all mostly to show the power of intellect; a women's intellect. Dickinson, ironically surrounded by her societies stereotype of her natural surroundings, "Discarded of the Housewife" , and showed male transcendentalists that she could obtain as much experience through her mind and writings, then as she could, actually being in the wilderness. Through her writings, she constantly proves that yes; she is in her natural surroundings, but the walls and ceiling of her house cannot stop the power of the mind. Ironically being trapped in her house by her own will, she takes all male power and influence from her life, and adds it to her own. She renders her self genderless, because there is no need of digression from male or female. She becomes her own "Divine".
The power which Dickinson writes with all comes from her body within. "The brain-is wider than the sky" , and Dickinson proved it through her writings. She wrote about first hand experiences that she never had, transcendentalist experiences, from the inside of her home. There was no Walden Pond to experience nature, and there was no sunset to watch, all there was for her, was the corners of the ceiling of her house. How ever, with the power of imagination behind her, Dickinson could transcend to anywhere she wanted, and she experienced anything she wanted. Dickinson used her writing, and "solitude" from society, to enable her to "Soul selects her own Society" . "The Brain is just weight of God" , her own brain and her own soul, and of coarse, her own god; "Mine" .
Emily Dickinson split of the transcendentalist road, to form her own branch, where the power of imagination took the place of experience. Her bold feminine statement to society proved that the confines of ones house is not enough to capture the power of the mind.
Both Ralph Emerson and David Thoreau used societies stereotype of the true male environment, "nature", to draw their power and write from their experiences. Experience was the most important factor to these writers. The ability "to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account in my next excursion" was the basis of all their writings. "To get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the whole world" was their goal behind all their writings. They did not use their power of writing in order to gain a transcendentalist experience, but rather to record them. Both Emerson and Thoreau chose to contact their true natural surroundings, and experience time alone in the "woods". By being "in solitude", it brought forth a conciseness that "all natural objects make a kindred impression, when the mind is open to their influence" .
Mans views of nature being rightfully his, to do with what he wants, is harshly contrasted by Emerson, who feels that "Nature sais,-He is my creature" . Emerson felt that man, corrupted by society, can over power the fate of over looking his true meaning. Escaping from the wheel of society into "the woods, is perpetual youth". By living in the woods, he found that fusing nature with soul, one can accomplish anything.
Emerson felt that nature was an extension of five of his senses, where he could feel the tree moving in the wind as if it was his own body. He stressed the theme of "having intercourse with heaven and earth", or interlacing your body and soul with nature. But, of all five senses, he stressed vision the most. Beauty can only be accomplished through the gate way of the eye, which is where most experiences are derived from. "The eye is the best of artists" , and has the power to display "the simple perception of natural forms" , which is where true beauty comes form. "Nature satisfies the soul purely by its loveliness" . By becoming "a transparent eye-ball. I am nothing. I see all" .
Being self reliant on oneself, following the idea that "Man is his own star" , Emerson displays his transcendentalist idea that applies to anyone who would like to follow it. The importance of flowing with nature, and excepting what you are is stressed in Emerson's self-reliance. By following the modo "Ne te quæsiveris extra" , Emerson completely committed himself to "nature". By letting it become part of his soul, he used its power to enable him to transcend into the identity of anything or anyone he would like. This idea is important to Emerson because it transforms "the tradesman, the attorney comes out of the din and craft of the street, and sees the sky and the woods, and is a man again" . Looking at himself as an individual, not as a number lost in a sea of people walking down a street, enabled Emerson to draw power to himself, where he did not have to rely on anyone or anything. He became his own deity, his own master, and his self owner. Emerson contained the ability "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart, is true for all men" , and that in itself is a philosophy which made him stand out from many, and made him an individual.
Emerson clearly states in Nature, being in your natural surrounding, the wilderness, is the key to happiness. But fails to recognize that not all human's natural surroundings are the "woods". Although he does admit that a true transcendentalist "does not reside in nature, but in man, or in a harmony of both" , he still focuses on a transcendentalist being in tune with nature. Emerson feels that transcendentalism must come from experience in the wilderness, and then through intellect.
David Thoreau also used "nature" for an escape from the wheel of society, where he "went into the woods" in order "to live deliberately". The woods is where the soul and nature combine to be one. Thoreau ideas were the foundations of transcendentalism, where Emerson, and any other transcendentalist built off. Thoreau's works were more politically centered than of Emerson's, but followed the same fundamentals that Emerson held in mind.
Thoreau made his trek into the "woods" in order to escape the machine, and leave behind society in order to prove that one can live with simplicity, and does not have to rely on society in order to provide his needs. Thoreau made his escape to Walden pond, where he composed one of his works, Life in the Woods. Through his experiences with nature, he questioned himself, "why should we live with such hurry and waste of life" ? The formulation of these questions clarified his thoughts to produce his ideas on transcendentalism. One should live there life as an individual, and not be weary the mob around him. "Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises" ? Thoreau was much more concerned with his experiences around him. Nature, for him, was a renewal of the soul, where he could confide in. Thoreau was also critical of mans progress, becoming more and more machine like. "Most of the luxuries and many of the so-called comforts of life are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind" . Simplicity was the only way Thoreau found hid way back to the true "nature" of man. He viewed his life as a man who "does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer" , and no one could challenge that or take that away from him. All of his power was drawn from "nature", the nature of a true man, where he could transcend to any point and become anything that he wanted.
In contrast to these two male writers, Emily Dickinson proved that transcendentalism can be achieved with out the element of experience, but rather just using imagination and the power of intellect to accomplish her goals. She used many transcendentalist ideas in her writing, but all mostly to show the power of intellect; a women's intellect. Dickinson, ironically surrounded by her societies stereotype of her natural surroundings, "Discarded of the Housewife" , and showed male transcendentalists that she could obtain as much experience through her mind and writings, then as she could, actually being in the wilderness. Through her writings, she constantly proves that yes; she is in her natural surroundings, but the walls and ceiling of her house cannot stop the power of the mind. Ironically being trapped in her house by her own will, she takes all male power and influence from her life, and adds it to her own. She renders her self genderless, because there is no need of digression from male or female. She becomes her own "Divine".
The power which Dickinson writes with all comes from her body within. "The brain-is wider than the sky" , and Dickinson proved it through her writings. She wrote about first hand experiences that she never had, transcendentalist experiences, from the inside of her home. There was no Walden Pond to experience nature, and there was no sunset to watch, all there was for her, was the corners of the ceiling of her house. How ever, with the power of imagination behind her, Dickinson could transcend to anywhere she wanted, and she experienced anything she wanted. Dickinson used her writing, and "solitude" from society, to enable her to "Soul selects her own Society" . "The Brain is just weight of God" , her own brain and her own soul, and of coarse, her own god; "Mine" .
Emily Dickinson split of the transcendentalist road, to form her own branch, where the power of imagination took the place of experience. Her bold feminine statement to society proved that the confines of ones house is not enough to capture the power of the mind.
Edgar Allan Poe
Edgar Allan Poe
Edgar Allan Poe was born near London on the 19th of January 1809. His mother was an actor and his father was a doctor. When Poe was 2 years old his father disappeared. His mother, who was seriously ill in tuberculosis, took Poe and his sister to Richmond, Virginia. Poe's mother died soon after this. The two siblings became then separated and Poe was taken care of by the wealthy family of the Allans. Due to Mr. Allans work the family had to move to England, where they spent five years. In 1826 Poe started at "The University of Virginia". Although he was a good student he didn't succeed due to his gambling, fighting and drinking. When Mr. Allan found out about this Poe had to finish school and start working in Mr. Allan's tobaccoshop. After some time Poe moved to Boston where he started publishing his small poems and short stories in newspapers. In 1827, Poe's first book "Tamberlane and other poems" came under the pseudonym of "A Bostonian". These poems were very influenced by Byron and showed a youthful attitude. Later the same year he joined the army. He succeeded there and In 1829 he signed for an officer-training. This was the same year as he published his second book "Al Aaraaf, Tamberlane and minor poems" but this time under the name of Edgar A Poe. Before he left his training he got financial help from the other cadets to publish his third version of the book, although Poe called this book a second version. In this book there are famous poems as "To Helen" and "Israfel". These poems show the musical effect that has come to characterize Poe's poems. Later Poe moved to Baltimore to live with his ant. There he married his cousin who was only 13 years old. Then Poe moved to New York to become famous, but with almost no success. Poe had after 1837 his best period with his greatest works as "The murders in the Rue Morgue" (1841) and "The fall of the house of Usher" (1839). Poe's wife passed away in 1847, and Poe took it hard. Yet he continued with his writing until he died the on 7th October 1849 by alcoholic poisoning.
Edgar Allan Poe was mostly known for his analytic and criticising analyses. It was them which gave him respect as a critic. Poe was influenced by the British 18th century's romantic horror short stories. That is why he wrote those. He was also very influenced by Jules Verne, Rudyard Kipling and Conan Doyle. Especially their early works, before the had found their own style. Poe was fascinated by the mystical and the unknown. He was also interested in the human subconscious and why a human being react in a certain way at a certain time. His stories are often about dark castles and castle-ruins which often have secrets buried deep down in the walls where they have been for centuries. Most likely in a moonlit desert landscape. Magical experiments and hypnosis play a big part in Poe's works. Many people thinks that Edgar Allan Poe was one of the first detective story writer with the short story "The murders in the Rue morgue", where the detective Monsieur Dupin solves a strange homicide case where a giant monkey is the murderer. This short story is a bit different because there is for example a three-page laying out about algae and mosses in the story.
Poe had a rhythmic and floating language in his texts and to show this, I have a couple of excerpts from the poem "The Raven". There are also examples of the mystical that often is found in Poe's productions. The poem is written in four-stroke iamb.
The Raven
" Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door."
" Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrowvainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow-sorrow for the lost Lenore
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore
Nameless here for evermore.
And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain Thrilled me
filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before."
" But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you"-here I opened wide the door-
Darkness there and nothing more."
" Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
"Surely," said I, "surely that is something at my window lattice;
Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door
Perched, and sat, and nothing more."
" Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting
"Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken! -- quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!
Qouth the Raven, "Nevermore."
And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor,
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted-nevermore! "
I think this is a good poem. It is typical for Poe. When you read the poem you can directly feel the rhythm. The characterising details are also in the poem. The moonlit landscape (1). The unnatural (2). The mood is also well hold up. It is really unpleasant and frightening. One can really feel the person sitting in his chair in a cottage somewhere.
One is sitting and waiting for something to happen when there suddenly is a knock on the door... Nobody there. Nothing but the terrifying silence and the dark shadows. The poem is good and I assume that it is the mood that makes it worth reading.
I have also read the short story "The facts in the case of M. Valdemar". It's about a person who's friend is called Valdemar. Valdemar is very ill. He's got consumption. Valdemar's left lung is all clogged up and his right lung is almost in the same condition when we meet him. The main character (The person P--) wants to cure Valdemar by using mesmerism, a special sort of hypnosis. Valdemar is taken to P-- and the treatment is begun after Valdemar's approval. At the beginning Valdemar's condition is improving but after a while he falls into a coma-similar condition where the only words that Valdemar can say are that he is dead or that he wants to die. Valdemar dies in the end of the short story after being "sleeping" for seven months. In this short story we can find good examples of Poe's character. The person P-wants to use hypnosis to improve a dying mans condition. Hypnosis is very typical for Poe. There is also a good atmosphere in this text. It's a bit spooky to read this short story, when the only thing one can hear is how ones brain is imagining Valdemar lying on his bed, dying, and the only sounds are Valdemar's rattling breathings and his attempts to communication. This short story is, like the poem "The Raven", good if I may say what I think.
I have also read the short story "The fall of the house of Usher" and I'm going to write about of it. I chose it because it's the most famous short story written by Poe and It is said that it is the best too.
The fall of the house of Usher
I've read "The fall of the house of Usher" by Edgar Allan Poe, It was written in 1839 and the main theme is horror. It's about a young man who is visiting his old friend from childhood who has become seriously ill. The man is staying there to keep his friend company and he is reading books to entertain the friend. One doesn't get to know the main character because he doesn't speak about himself. The only thing that is obvious is that he can ride but it's irrelevant. The old friend is called Roderick Usher. He is very nervous person when the young man arrives. He also got a hereditary decease that makes him extremely sensitive. He can only eat food with no or little taste, wear clothes of a certain cloth and the smell of flowers and sunlight makes him furious. He also got an abnormal regret. One doesn't get to know Roderick's sister either except that she is even more ill than Roderick. The house where the Ushers live is an old castle with grey and miss-coloured walls overgrown by mould and mosses. But the house looked like it could stay up for several years from now because the walls hadn't begun falling apart. What one almost couldn't see was a fissure which made its way, from the roof, down the wall in zig-zag direction until it disappeared in the sullen waters of the moat . These early descriptions of the castle is important to build up the grey and sad atmosphere. The castle tells the reader that the people who live there aren't rich too. As I just said is that the atmosphere is built up by describing the castle that the young man arrives to.
Poe uses sentences like "I looked upon the scene before me-upon the mere house, and the simple landscape features of the domain-upon the bleak walls-upon the vacant eye-like windows-upon a few rank sedges-and upon a few white trunks of decayed trees...". But the description of Roderick is also helping to put together the impression with sentences like: "The silken hair, too, had been suffered to grow all unheeded, and as, in its wild gossamer texture, it floated rather than fell about the face." The whole story is about Roderick who has become isolated in his castle and there he has grown extreme sensitivity to senses. I think that Poe is trying to tell people that they shouldn't isolate themselves. They will then become like Roderick where the only thing that matters is his sister that passes away after some time. Along with that the sister dies, everything falls apart. I really mean fall apart then. Just after that the young man has left the house everything falls into pieces and it is suddenly obvious that the framework was weak although the house looked table.
I had major expectations when I started reading this short story and I was not disappointed. It was great. The atmosphere was very realistic and the story was good. The ending comes as a surprise. It isn't at all what one can expect. As the matter of fact I liked all the short stories that I have read that Poe has written. He is really a great horror-writer. Maybe the best. But Stephen King is also great.
Edgar Allan Poe was born near London on the 19th of January 1809. His mother was an actor and his father was a doctor. When Poe was 2 years old his father disappeared. His mother, who was seriously ill in tuberculosis, took Poe and his sister to Richmond, Virginia. Poe's mother died soon after this. The two siblings became then separated and Poe was taken care of by the wealthy family of the Allans. Due to Mr. Allans work the family had to move to England, where they spent five years. In 1826 Poe started at "The University of Virginia". Although he was a good student he didn't succeed due to his gambling, fighting and drinking. When Mr. Allan found out about this Poe had to finish school and start working in Mr. Allan's tobaccoshop. After some time Poe moved to Boston where he started publishing his small poems and short stories in newspapers. In 1827, Poe's first book "Tamberlane and other poems" came under the pseudonym of "A Bostonian". These poems were very influenced by Byron and showed a youthful attitude. Later the same year he joined the army. He succeeded there and In 1829 he signed for an officer-training. This was the same year as he published his second book "Al Aaraaf, Tamberlane and minor poems" but this time under the name of Edgar A Poe. Before he left his training he got financial help from the other cadets to publish his third version of the book, although Poe called this book a second version. In this book there are famous poems as "To Helen" and "Israfel". These poems show the musical effect that has come to characterize Poe's poems. Later Poe moved to Baltimore to live with his ant. There he married his cousin who was only 13 years old. Then Poe moved to New York to become famous, but with almost no success. Poe had after 1837 his best period with his greatest works as "The murders in the Rue Morgue" (1841) and "The fall of the house of Usher" (1839). Poe's wife passed away in 1847, and Poe took it hard. Yet he continued with his writing until he died the on 7th October 1849 by alcoholic poisoning.
Edgar Allan Poe was mostly known for his analytic and criticising analyses. It was them which gave him respect as a critic. Poe was influenced by the British 18th century's romantic horror short stories. That is why he wrote those. He was also very influenced by Jules Verne, Rudyard Kipling and Conan Doyle. Especially their early works, before the had found their own style. Poe was fascinated by the mystical and the unknown. He was also interested in the human subconscious and why a human being react in a certain way at a certain time. His stories are often about dark castles and castle-ruins which often have secrets buried deep down in the walls where they have been for centuries. Most likely in a moonlit desert landscape. Magical experiments and hypnosis play a big part in Poe's works. Many people thinks that Edgar Allan Poe was one of the first detective story writer with the short story "The murders in the Rue morgue", where the detective Monsieur Dupin solves a strange homicide case where a giant monkey is the murderer. This short story is a bit different because there is for example a three-page laying out about algae and mosses in the story.
Poe had a rhythmic and floating language in his texts and to show this, I have a couple of excerpts from the poem "The Raven". There are also examples of the mystical that often is found in Poe's productions. The poem is written in four-stroke iamb.
The Raven
" Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of someone gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door."
" Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrowvainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow-sorrow for the lost Lenore
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore
Nameless here for evermore.
And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain Thrilled me
filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before."
" But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you"-here I opened wide the door-
Darkness there and nothing more."
" Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
"Surely," said I, "surely that is something at my window lattice;
Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore;
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door
Perched, and sat, and nothing more."
" Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!" I shrieked, upstarting
"Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken! -- quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!
Qouth the Raven, "Nevermore."
And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor,
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted-nevermore! "
I think this is a good poem. It is typical for Poe. When you read the poem you can directly feel the rhythm. The characterising details are also in the poem. The moonlit landscape (1). The unnatural (2). The mood is also well hold up. It is really unpleasant and frightening. One can really feel the person sitting in his chair in a cottage somewhere.
One is sitting and waiting for something to happen when there suddenly is a knock on the door... Nobody there. Nothing but the terrifying silence and the dark shadows. The poem is good and I assume that it is the mood that makes it worth reading.
I have also read the short story "The facts in the case of M. Valdemar". It's about a person who's friend is called Valdemar. Valdemar is very ill. He's got consumption. Valdemar's left lung is all clogged up and his right lung is almost in the same condition when we meet him. The main character (The person P--) wants to cure Valdemar by using mesmerism, a special sort of hypnosis. Valdemar is taken to P-- and the treatment is begun after Valdemar's approval. At the beginning Valdemar's condition is improving but after a while he falls into a coma-similar condition where the only words that Valdemar can say are that he is dead or that he wants to die. Valdemar dies in the end of the short story after being "sleeping" for seven months. In this short story we can find good examples of Poe's character. The person P-wants to use hypnosis to improve a dying mans condition. Hypnosis is very typical for Poe. There is also a good atmosphere in this text. It's a bit spooky to read this short story, when the only thing one can hear is how ones brain is imagining Valdemar lying on his bed, dying, and the only sounds are Valdemar's rattling breathings and his attempts to communication. This short story is, like the poem "The Raven", good if I may say what I think.
I have also read the short story "The fall of the house of Usher" and I'm going to write about of it. I chose it because it's the most famous short story written by Poe and It is said that it is the best too.
The fall of the house of Usher
I've read "The fall of the house of Usher" by Edgar Allan Poe, It was written in 1839 and the main theme is horror. It's about a young man who is visiting his old friend from childhood who has become seriously ill. The man is staying there to keep his friend company and he is reading books to entertain the friend. One doesn't get to know the main character because he doesn't speak about himself. The only thing that is obvious is that he can ride but it's irrelevant. The old friend is called Roderick Usher. He is very nervous person when the young man arrives. He also got a hereditary decease that makes him extremely sensitive. He can only eat food with no or little taste, wear clothes of a certain cloth and the smell of flowers and sunlight makes him furious. He also got an abnormal regret. One doesn't get to know Roderick's sister either except that she is even more ill than Roderick. The house where the Ushers live is an old castle with grey and miss-coloured walls overgrown by mould and mosses. But the house looked like it could stay up for several years from now because the walls hadn't begun falling apart. What one almost couldn't see was a fissure which made its way, from the roof, down the wall in zig-zag direction until it disappeared in the sullen waters of the moat . These early descriptions of the castle is important to build up the grey and sad atmosphere. The castle tells the reader that the people who live there aren't rich too. As I just said is that the atmosphere is built up by describing the castle that the young man arrives to.
Poe uses sentences like "I looked upon the scene before me-upon the mere house, and the simple landscape features of the domain-upon the bleak walls-upon the vacant eye-like windows-upon a few rank sedges-and upon a few white trunks of decayed trees...". But the description of Roderick is also helping to put together the impression with sentences like: "The silken hair, too, had been suffered to grow all unheeded, and as, in its wild gossamer texture, it floated rather than fell about the face." The whole story is about Roderick who has become isolated in his castle and there he has grown extreme sensitivity to senses. I think that Poe is trying to tell people that they shouldn't isolate themselves. They will then become like Roderick where the only thing that matters is his sister that passes away after some time. Along with that the sister dies, everything falls apart. I really mean fall apart then. Just after that the young man has left the house everything falls into pieces and it is suddenly obvious that the framework was weak although the house looked table.
I had major expectations when I started reading this short story and I was not disappointed. It was great. The atmosphere was very realistic and the story was good. The ending comes as a surprise. It isn't at all what one can expect. As the matter of fact I liked all the short stories that I have read that Poe has written. He is really a great horror-writer. Maybe the best. But Stephen King is also great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)