A snippet from my review for A Canticle for Leibowitz:
[some background info: an A-bomb has detonated in Asia and the radiation has traveled to North America. law allows people who received extreme doses of radiation to be euthanized, if they so choose. Zerchi is a Catholic monk, aggainst euthanism (it's a sin). Cors is a doctor who euthanizes willing radiation victims (he's sees it as merciful).]
Who chose the right way to be moral, Zerchi or Cors? Or, are there numerous ways to be moral? Perhaps both Zerchi’s and Cors’ morals are “good” morals? This seems plausible, for each man’s belief [about euthenasia], broken down into it’s essence, seems “right.” Zerchi’s belief, minus it’s religious label of “sin,” is simply that the purposeful ending of a life, whether through murder, suicide, or euthenaisa, is not right. As to why it’s not right, Mark Rowlands suggests that death harms humans because it takes away a human’s future. Thus, a purposeful death (murder/suicide/euthanasia) is a purposeful canceling of a future. And this, as suggested by Rowlands, is what makes death bad. Thus, euthanasia is bad. However, Cors’ reasons for purposely ending a life also seem “right.” Do we not shoot horses who are injured beyond repair? We give animals release from pain, why not humans? Cors’ intent is to be merciful; he sees the immense suffering of the radiation victims and only has one way to end their pain: euthanasia, a legal and painless treatment. Thus, does Cors not have “right” morals, too? Kant would agree, for Cors’ intention is good; Cors intends to be merciful, he does not intend to cause harm. What’s more, Cors’ use of euthanasia fulfills his duty, another Kantian mark of a “good” moral, for Cors duty as a doctor is to care for his patients and not cause them harm. But, what it comes down to is, which option (letting the victims live in pain or ending their lives) would cause the greater harm? Would Cors cause more harm by releasing a radiation victim from the pain of this life (and thereby ending her future), or would Cors do more harm by letting the victim live (and thereby let her continue in immense, unstoppable pain)? Perhaps there is no “right” answer. Perhaps it depends on the situation. Perhaps it depends on the person. Perhaps some moral questions do not have maxims.
[some background info: an A-bomb has detonated in Asia and the radiation has traveled to North America. law allows people who received extreme doses of radiation to be euthanized, if they so choose. Zerchi is a Catholic monk, aggainst euthanism (it's a sin). Cors is a doctor who euthanizes willing radiation victims (he's sees it as merciful).]
Who chose the right way to be moral, Zerchi or Cors? Or, are there numerous ways to be moral? Perhaps both Zerchi’s and Cors’ morals are “good” morals? This seems plausible, for each man’s belief [about euthenasia], broken down into it’s essence, seems “right.” Zerchi’s belief, minus it’s religious label of “sin,” is simply that the purposeful ending of a life, whether through murder, suicide, or euthenaisa, is not right. As to why it’s not right, Mark Rowlands suggests that death harms humans because it takes away a human’s future. Thus, a purposeful death (murder/suicide/euthanasia) is a purposeful canceling of a future. And this, as suggested by Rowlands, is what makes death bad. Thus, euthanasia is bad. However, Cors’ reasons for purposely ending a life also seem “right.” Do we not shoot horses who are injured beyond repair? We give animals release from pain, why not humans? Cors’ intent is to be merciful; he sees the immense suffering of the radiation victims and only has one way to end their pain: euthanasia, a legal and painless treatment. Thus, does Cors not have “right” morals, too? Kant would agree, for Cors’ intention is good; Cors intends to be merciful, he does not intend to cause harm. What’s more, Cors’ use of euthanasia fulfills his duty, another Kantian mark of a “good” moral, for Cors duty as a doctor is to care for his patients and not cause them harm. But, what it comes down to is, which option (letting the victims live in pain or ending their lives) would cause the greater harm? Would Cors cause more harm by releasing a radiation victim from the pain of this life (and thereby ending her future), or would Cors do more harm by letting the victim live (and thereby let her continue in immense, unstoppable pain)? Perhaps there is no “right” answer. Perhaps it depends on the situation. Perhaps it depends on the person. Perhaps some moral questions do not have maxims.
posted by bemily at 2:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home