Write an argumentative essay on why euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide is morally and ethically wrong. Please list arguments while using evidence
to support your claims against euthanasia. List some opposite viewpoints as well clear and focused moral objection against your position. An easy way to do this is using another Appeal to Consequences-you would weigh the +/- differently or consider different harms and benefits in the objection.
The reply would be to counter the Appeal to Consequences by arguing against that +/- weighing or arguing that the wrong harms and benefits are being considered.
Most people use the Appeal to Consequences method to argue for or against Euthanasia:
Use the following info to help
be sure to use Appeal to Consequences (Mandatory)
Appeal to consequences is a useful and easy method of moral reasoning. When in doubt about how to make a moral argument, use an appeal to consequences. The gist of the method is that moral assessment is done in terms of weighing harms and benefits. The method also coincides with common moral intuitions: it is widely accepted that harming people and things is morally bad and benefiting them is good. Not surprisingly, if something is more beneficial than harmful it is good; if something is more harmful than beneficial it is bad.
The theory behind this method is consequentialism: the view that the value of actions is to be assessed in terms of their consequences. There are many types of consequentialist theories and not all of them are moral theories. Because of this it is important to present an appeal to consequences as a moral argument and not just a cost-benefit analysis. Though this method is generally accepted, there is considerable philosophical debate over the underlying theories. The best-known form of moral consequentialism is utilitarianism and applying this moral theory is an easy way to justify using an appeal to consequences.
Method
The method involves the following steps:
Step 1: Show that action, policy, etc. X creates Y harms and Z benefits for those who matter.
Step 2: Weigh and assess Y and Z.
Step 3: Argue that moral assessment is based on the consequences of actions.
Step 4A: If Y outweighs Z, then conclude that X is morally unacceptable.
Step 4B: If Z outweighs Y, then conclude that X is morally acceptable.
Put in a simple argument form, the method can be used to argue that something is morally wrong:
Premise 1: X creates Y harms and Z benefits.
Premise 2: Moral assessment is based on the consequences of actions.
Premise 3: Y outweighs Z.
Conclusion: X is morally unacceptable.
The method can be also be used in a simple argument that something is morally acceptable:
Premise 1: X creates Y harms and Z benefits.
Premise 2: Moral assessment is based on the consequences of actions.
Premise 3: Z outweighs X.
Conclusion: X is morally acceptable.
When making a moral argument, Step 3 is a critical step (this establishes Premise 2 in the simple arguments). Without the connection to morality, the argument would just be an assessment of harms and benefits and would not be moral argument. People often leave out this step and often end up providing pragmatic advice instead of presenting a moral argument. This is discussed in greater detail, below.
As an example, this method could be used to provide a moral argument in favor of censoring violent movies. The first step would be presenting the harms and benefits of these movies. This could be done by using an argument from authority to present data from various studies that contend that exposure to such violent movies causes people to become violent (such as shooting people in schools). This would be a harmful consequence of such movies. The beneficial consequences would be the entertainment provided to the audience as well as the profits to the media industry. The second step would be to weigh these harms and benefits. One could argue that while there are some benefits from violent media, such as large profits, one cannot weigh money more than human suffering and death. The third step would be to argue that moral assessment should be based on assessing consequences. This could be done by using an argument from authority (appealing to, for example, the authority of philosophers such as John Stuart Mill) or by another sort of argument. The final step would be to draw the appropriate conclusion. In this case the argument would lead to the conclusion that such censorship is morally acceptable and hence violence in the media should be eliminated or at least curtailed.
Moral versus Practical
A common mistake when using this method in a moral argument is to simply weigh harms and benefits without including a moral element. This approach can be used to provide a practical argument for or against something but obviously does not provide a moral argument.
For example, when some argues against cheating in a relationship, they might present practical reasons why someone should not cheat such as the as the harms of disease, pregnancy, divorce, damage to ones reputation and physical injury. If the person concludes that a person should not cheat because of these practical concerns (like avoiding disease and harm) then they would be presenting a practical argument and not a moral argument: if you do not want to be harmed, then do not cheat. While this is good practical advice, it does not show that cheating is immoral or morally acceptable.
To properly use the method to make a moral argument, the moral element needs to be included. The object of this argument is to show that the morality of something (such as an action) can be determined by assessing its harms and benefits. One easy way to do this is to use an argument from authority. For example, you might use John Stuart Mill as an authority and cite his view of ethics (specifically utilitarianism). This would make the connection between consequences and morality. While this is a legitimate argument, it is rather weak because there other equally authoritative philosophers who argue against utilitarianism.
A second approach is to use the method of applying moral theories and state that you are arguing within the context of a consequentialist ethical theory (such as Mills). While this is a legitimate approach it does have the weakness of simply assuming the correctness of the theory. The makes the argument depend on how appealing the theory is to the reader. A third approach is to develop an argument from intuition to argue that creating positive value is good and creating negative value is wrong. It could then be argued that more positive value is better than more negative value (this could be done by using an analogy, perhaps to something like profit and loss). The appropriate conclusion could then be drawn based on the assessment of the relative weight of harms and benefits. There are also other ways to bring in the moral element.
Responding
The appeal to consequences method is an excellent method to use when you need to make a moral argument and raise objections against your own argument. You can argue for your position on an issue using an appeal to consequences, then use the same method to raise an objection and then counter this objection using this same method. When you need to argue and raise objections against your own view and you need to do it fast, this is an ideal method to use.
One way to respond to this method is to use the method with an alternative assessment. This can be done by presenting an alternative set of harms of benefits or by arguing for a different assessment of their relative weight. For example, a person might present the following counter to the example given above.
While violent media might produce such harms, it also produces benefits. Violent films, shows and video games are very popular, generating large profits. People also enjoy violent media. If we weigh the small number of deaths and injuries against the massive profits and enjoyment, the benefits of violent media outweigh the harms. Therefore, violent media is morally acceptable. Naturally, a proper argument would need to be developed more, but the example provides the generally idea of how this sort of thing can be done.
A second way to respond is to reject the method and argue using another method (this would be to argue by counter method). It can be argued that some factor other than consequences should be used when assessing the situation. This can be done by using another method, such as appealing to rights or rules, to counter the original argument. To continue with the example of censorship of violent movies, the following illustrates this approach. While violence in the media might lead to harms, people have a moral right to free expression. This moral right overrides the consideration of harms. Therefore, violence in the media should not be censored. Naturally, this sort of argument would need to be fully developed. In this example, the right to free expression would need to be supported by an argument.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]