Ethics in Perspective: Politics, Humanism, and Christian Morality
I will apply my contention, along with three other views of ethics, to a current issue that can be remedied theoretically by the three views. The topic for which I will apply the burden of these ideas is that of euthanasia, or mercy killing. This topic is applicable because it tests the limitations of the views presented in this paper. I will, however, prove that my contention is the only one that leaves no doubt as to what is the ethical course of action in dealing with euthanasia.
Definitions of Life and Euthanasia
In order to clarify the issue at hand, there needs to be two definitions allowed. The first definition is of what life is. There are many different conceptions of when life begins, what life consists of, and when life ends. The Christian conception of what life is seems to be that life begins at the conception of the fetus, which disallows abortions because it is deemed murder. Life is spent in the pursuit of knowing God and living a life of faith and good action. Life ends physically when body functions stop totally and the spirit or soul makes travel to the afterlife, heaven or hell.
Another definition for life, which seems to be more logical and acceptable to me, is a non-theist scientific view. Life begins technically when the body is capable of supporting itself outside of the mother’s womb, around the time of birth. Life consists of finding happiness and fulfillment through different avenues of living and forwarding the species through procreation. Life ends in this view when brain functions cease and questions of the afterlife are moot because it is not possible to prove the existence of the afterlife.
Having defined life in two ways, it is important to look at the definition of euthanasia. Euthanasia originates from the Greek word meaning “easy death.” The term means the act of killing someone painlessly, specifically when the person is afflicted with a terminal illness or is in extreme pain (wordreference.com). There are two types of euthanasia: passive and active. Passive euthanasia is when doctors and families allow the terminally ill to pass on without giving any medical assistance or trying to maintain the body through medical science. Active euthanasia is when concerned parties provide patients in extreme pain or near death with medical assistance with the ends of passing them onto death (encyclopediabritannica.com). Euthanasia is an extremely controversial method of medical care that is accepted in many parts of Europe and in a few areas of the United States is becoming more acceptable (Portland, OR, for example). However, religious and conservative secular groups oppose euthanasia vehemently because it denigrates the sanctity of life.
Having explained the definitions of life and euthanasia, it is now possible to look at the applications of several thinkers on the modern issue of euthanasia.
St. Thomas Aquinas: Ethics by Natural Law
St. Thomas Aquinas, in his book Treatise on Law, deals with the connection of man made law and the idea of an “eternal law”, that which is laid forth by God and his subsequent Creation. The original type of law that is engrained within the world is eternal law, which is the fruition of divine reasoning by the leaders of a “perfect community.” (Treatise 13) From eternal law comes natural law, which is the “participation” of eternal law in a rational being (Treatise 15). From natural law comes human law, which is the legal element of society that we know in conventional discourse (Treatise 19).
Aquinas, however, was not so hopeful as to leave human law as the lone dictate for human activity. Divine law, or law conducted by a transcendent authority, was necessary in order to ensure justice in humanity. Aquinas states four reasons that such a law must exist: first, that man be guided by law to proceed from action to action; second, judgment and action are subjective across time and space; third, man is only capable of judging actions performed, not the birth of actions within individuals; and finally, in dealing with all things evil, some good is destroyed by human law (Treatise 20-21). Aquinas states his skepticism in self-judgment by humanity strongly and insists on the existence of these different layers of law.
Perhaps the most interesting portion of this work, and that which is most appropriate to the topic of euthanasia, is in Aquinas’ discussion of natural law. In this discussion, a definition of human inclination takes place. Human inclination, or tendency, remains consistent to those things that will preserve and advance our species. This includes intercourse, nurturing, caring for those of all ages, and education. From all of this comes the acceptance that God and society are not only in existence, but vital to society (Treatise 60-61). In short, Aquinas states that we are incapable under the influences of divine law to harm those in society because it would work against the preservation of life and inclinations toward God.
To apply Aquinas’ viewpoint on law to the ethical issue of euthanasia is not to take too far a leap. Aquinas, as I have presented, saw the preservation of life as a contingent part of human nature and was incapable of being modified for situational concerns. If a human being takes part in the process of divine law, he is admitting part of himself to the community of divinity in an act of preservation. Part of supposed human autonomy would be lost with the commitment to following divine law, which has more advantages than disadvantages. The life not observed under the scope of law would be meaningless and brutal, similar to Hobbes’ view in Leviathan.
In this case, euthanasia would be unacceptable at any point in human life. The commitment to preserving life as part of law is so integrated that separating preservation into varying degrees would be unfathomable. The act of purposefully allowing death to occur to any member of the human community would be in direct dereliction of natural law. Creation of life is not a fleeting endeavor; it is necessary for the promulgation of humanity. Medically allowing someone to pass into death or to actively take his or her life would be illegal and dangerous to the sanctity of all human life.
Obviously then, Aquinas’ ethic would place the preservation of life at the top of a pyramid of action. The paramount of law in the sense of Treatise is the promotion of human tendencies. Aquinas would not only chafe against the idea that euthanasia is acceptable, he would most likely say that the means to the act are nearly as dangerous as the ends. The means to enacting euthanasia involve using drugs typically dangerous to the human anatomical system, not providing food or drink to a malnourished body incapable of supporting itself, or simply removing medical support in the way of machinery and technical assistance to the body. These means to the healthy body would have ill effects, much like they do in the terminal body. So, Aquinas’ means to preservation would be anything that maintains a healthy human body capable of living under the vagaries of all levels of law.
Aquinas’ legal human, however, does not embrace the realities of humanity. If preservation is an innate part of the human psyche, there should be no combat or even the creation of military in order to protect human legal institutions. Aquinas is placing far too much faith in a theistic viewpoint to understand rationality and ideas of ethics. Obviously a theist would say that the preservation of life is key because the Creator (in any religion that has one) has placed life in the universe for a purpose. Aquinas’ purpose is the creation of community to improve life. But community is damaged by over-protection of life that is marginalized by bad chance and luck.
Treatise, when taken to its logical conclusion, does not provide a viable ethic in dealing with euthanasia and the issue of life. The commitment to law in this text is admirable though it is not capable of dealing with individual situations in an appropriate manner. Hypothetically, there could be a person that is ill and in order to save them, a donation of an organ needed to be taken from another person who is a matching donor but will be put at risk due to the surgery. These operations are very dangerous and the donor dies on the surgical table. In other words, what is the appropriate cost for preserving life?
Aquinas does not seem to answer this question specifically, but it seems that the community must rally to preserve the lives of all its members, as part of its very nature. This community then must face constant threat of elimination every time a member is placed in a life or death situation because they are all accountable for the preservation of life. Euthanasia would be ruled out by Aquinas’ ethics, but his ideas are not logical in dealing with the debate between preserving life and dealing with the realities of the terminal life.
Machiavelli: The Ethics of Fortune and Politics
Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince is a document that was intended to be a guide for political figures in 15th century Italy. It is not difficult, however, to apply the larger ethical considerations of politics to the more personal considerations of death and euthanasia. Machiavelli’s politics have been applied to the business world, personal fulfillment of goals, and to modern politics by many authors in the late 20th century. Machiavelli is in style and therefore is open to the test of euthanasia.
Machiavelli discusses the disposition of the ideal prince in Chapter 18 of The Prince. In said chapter, the author says that the ideal politician has a “flexible disposition.” This hypothetical figure must give off the appearance of benevolence and keep those who surround him content. This, however, does not imply appeasement and constantly acting good. Machiavelli says that “âÂ?¦he should not deviate from what is good, if that is possible, but he should know how to do evil, if that is necessary.” (The Prince, 57) Overall, the man who uses his prowess and opportunity are able to maintain their kingdom.
In another chapter of relative importance, Machiavelli discusses the role of fortune, or chance, in the lives of the prince (and mankind in general). He said that at least half of our lives are ruled by fortune and the other half ruled by the actions and motivations of the individual. The “prince” must deal with the role of fortune by being dynamic in relation to his policies (The Prince, 80). Machiavelli describes the circumstance of the leader who is successful at one turn because of fortune and benevolence but at the next turn lost all of his power and fame because he was not able to handle the fluid nature of fortune (The Prince, 81). In conclusion, Machiavelli stated that a leader must compensate for the hand of fortune by acting impetuously and not be hesitant in decision-making. Fortune is a woman, according to the author, and the only way to hope to tame fortune is by forcing it into submission (The Prince, 82).
There are two conclusions that can be drawn from Machiavelli in dealing with euthanasia. The first conclusion is that Machiavelli would have condoned and promoted mercy killing if such an issue were to come to his attention. The motivations behind this are three fold: first, such actions would eliminate dependents that take up resources; second, euthanasia would eliminate competition for funding and consumption; and, finally, individuals should “know how to do evil” when necessary. Such motivations are very sketchy and will be discussed later.
The second conclusion that can be drawn is that Machiavelli would have supported active euthanasia over passive euthanasia because the use of medical devices to speed the “easy death” along would be more efficient and would shorten the emotion that would be part of the grieving process. Machiavelli’s work is applicable as such to any other issues dealing with life, death, and the aging process because it provides a an opportunistic, selfish mentality that can be applied to many situations.
The first major objection to Machiavelli applied to euthanasia is that the motivation for the action is incorrect. Part of the act of killing mercifully is to maintain the sanctity of life by not prolonging it needlessly. Machiavelli’s political machine would ensure that any lives that were not useful to the efficient success of the “prince” would be terminated. While I feel that euthanasia is acceptable for those near death and in extreme amounts of pain, there have been instances where those who have been in pain at least were capable of overcoming the odds. At the first sign of any prolonged medical stay and of any handicaps or disabilities that could possibly arise, the Machiavellian euthanasia would be enacted. This concept is more for economics and not for any reason of care or love for humanity.
The second objection is a question of what action is more benevolent. According to this application of Machiavellian, the “prince” could use euthanasia as a show of benevolence because it puts a quick end to the pains of the people and shows his care for his subjects. Is it more benevolent to ease life into death or to preserve life when ever possible? And at what cost does such a decision occur? The true problem with these questions is that they are political postures by the “prince” instead of any substantial ethical reasoning on the part of an informed being. Benevolence is not the measure of whether people should be allowed to die with dignity.
Kurtz: The Ethic of Humanism
Paul Kurtz provides the secular humanist perspective on life and meaning in The Power of Humanism. In this book, Kurtz hopes to show that humanity has a purpose and an end goal without the aid of any transcendent figures that our absent from our every day lives. Kurtz states that the very essence of human life is “creative achievement”, which means that individuals are defined by the projects and endeavors that are integral parts of our lives (Embracing the Power of Humanism, 5).
Kurtz would not permit euthanasia in his ideal humanism. The first problem Kurtz would have is that euthanasia is an admission that an individual’s innate excellence cannot be realized. Such an admission would be unfathomable to Kurtz, who would cast such an individual and those responsible for his or her death to be committing crimes against human nature. Realization and excellence are necessities in Kurtz’s humanism and killing someone before there time would be unacceptable (Embracing, 5).
Another point at which Kurtz would be at odds with euthanasia is in the terminal nature of life. The meaningful life is one of creative achievement tempered with the realization that life is short. Based solely on this statement, it would seem Kurtz might favor death with dignity, as a concession to an individual’s meaningful life. However, Kurtz goes on to say that there should be “no false hopes about death, but we should do what we can to ward it off.” Furthermore, he says that the “full” life is what is important and that the meaning of our lives is based on our accomplishments. Kurtz opposes euthanasia because it cuts short human potential for achievement and concedes that humans are limited in their ability to overcome (Embracing, 7).
Finally, in a section called “Why is Life Worth Living?” Kurtz discusses the different perspectives on the worth of living versus dying. In this section, Kurtz demonstrates the humanist spin on how to find worth in living by saying that death is the “cardinal sin” of the humanist and that survival is the highest obligation. Kurtz states, “If life seems empty it is usually because our basic needs are unsatisfied and our most important desires are frustrated.” (Embracing, 23) Kurtz provides a seemingly common sense way of providing meaning in our lives: meet basic needs, proceed onto creative achievement, dabble in areas of pleasure and leisure, and end life content with your achievements. Surviving is necessary in order to complete Kurtz’s development of meaning.
Euthanasia does not fit at all into Kurtz’s celebration of life. Secular humanism is based on an acceptance of, but not a submission to, eventual death. Too much need to be accomplished in life to allow someone to die not only before his or her time but in a premeditated fashion. The preservation of human life is so necessary that a high cost would be levied in order for life to be maintained.
Kurtz’s work is far too optimistic and simplistic to be acceptable. First of all, it is very easy to say that everyone can find meaning in his or her life in a land where opportunity reigns for the wealthy. No doubt Kurtz is a person of respectability and some wealth and is well educated, allowing him far more opportunities. Western perspectives and sensibilities skew the idea that all life has meaning through creative achievement. As such, Kurtz’s humanism is not far reaching and cannot possibly apply to cases of euthanasia or any issue for that matter.
Another objection is that an individual life that is marred by terminal illness and extreme pain is worthy of a death that allows for the dignity of the individual, not an all out medical assault on death, which is unavoidable. The potential for creative achievement in the case of someone who is brain dead or who has an advanced case of cancer is limited to the point that if creative achievement is the worth of life, then life’s worth is outweighed by comfort. Kurtz’s standard of achievement is clouded by doubts as to whether achieving something minor during a person’s last days balances out against the comfort of death for said individual.
Kurtz’s secular humanism in relation to euthanasia is unacceptable. It seeks to prolong life for the sake of living despite the fact that lives that are afflicted with disease are not capable of fulfilling their meaning. Kurtz would have the medical community and individuals prolong life in some sort of attempt at ultimate survival, defeating the inevitability of death with human ingenuity.
A Defense of Euthanasia as Necessary to the Sanctity of Life
Having shown the limitations of the three previous thinkers, I will show that euthanasia answers all of the questions that were unanswerable by Aquinas, Kurtz, and Machiavelli. I believe that euthanasia is an acceptable means of dying for those who are terminally ill or are in such degrees of pain or disability that they are unable to live life outside of the aid of a machine. This may sound callous to the casual reader, but it is the most fair and acceptable of all the alternatives.
In coming up with this brief defense, I have pondered how I would want to be treated near the time of my death. My conclusion is that I would certainly wish to accept that my life was to end and go out on my terms, with dignity and in a way that was as controlled as possible. To answer the concern of a secular humanist that life’s achievements are not being met and therefore life is not being fulfilled, I would say that I have fulfilled as much as I was able to in life before my body could give no longer. Kurtz’s comment that survival is the top priority is narrow-minded because survival at the cost of forfeiting dignity is not survival at all. Life is not a result of creative achievement but it exists on its own. We should not necessarily attempt to defeat death at all costs because then we are denying the terms of our unwritten contract with nature to relinquish our bodies.
As I have mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the act of easing someone into death is an ethical issue that needs to pass the ends and means test. Do the ends justify the means in euthanasia? The means necessary to putting someone to a dignified death are based on the trust of the acted upon that the actors involved are looking out for their best interest. The means also include the acted upon making a conscious decision to not prolong their pain (i.e. cancer patients). The medical means include the two defined practices of euthanasia.
Passive euthanasia is the acceptable means because it allows a natural death to occur, which is more in tune with the way in which an individual is born (through the process of child birth, which for the most part is natural). With the example of childbirth, there is the objection that machines are necessary in order to ensure the survival of newborn children. This may be true, but very soon after birth the child is independent of machine and is capable of surviving merely on the love and care of the family. Much like the birth of an individual, the death can and should be natural to allow the body to not suffer any longer than it has to.
Active euthanasia is an act that is not totally acceptable but is close on the ethical scale to passive euthanasia. The basic ethical value of euthanasia is still maintained when performed actively, but there is the consideration of how humanely the active treatments are performed. While the same end is being created by active euthanasia, the only problem that prevents its total, unconditional acceptance is that it can be mishandled in varying ways and degrees. One doctor can perform the act in a way that is as perfect as possible while another can totally mishandle the procedure and cause undue pain or physical damage to the body. While this might seem like a minor issue, it may be but to that individual’s family and to observers the body of the deceased is damaged and causes undue emotional harm. This is an example of the ethical scale that I referred to in the opening.
Euthanasia is acceptable as a means to maintaining the sanctity of human life. It is a paradox to think that destroying human life is in a way preserving its importance but it is true. By not prolonging human life artificially and allowing the human body to pass on its own terms when it is no longer capable of surviving in the long term, then that human life is realizing its natural potential. Humanity is naturally at odds with itself over destruction and preservation but it is obvious that in order to preserve human life and the importance of life, it is necessary to allow human will to decide its course within the confines of its physical form.
Conclusion
Ethical value needs to be placed onto a scale of comparative value. As I have mentioned before, I contend that passive euthanasia is at the top of the scale in relation on how to maintain the dignity of human life in dealing with the terminally ill. Closely related to this is active euthanasia, and along the scale following are the beliefs of Aquinas, Machiavelli, and Kurtz. This particular scale attempts to answer the question of how to perceive the terminally ill and what is the best for them and for those who are acting on their behalf. I feel that I have defended my contention sufficiently and I feel that such a scale of ethical values can be applied to any issue of pondering means and ends. Ethics is not just how to act but how these actions effect the actor, the acted upon, and the proceeding set of decision and consequences.
