Lecture Notes, J.C.

Robinson

Unit Five—
Categorical Logic
Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Table of Contents

Section I Categorical Logic......................................................................................................................2

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................2
Statements and Classes...........................................................................................................................3
Translations and Standard Form..............................................................................................................5
Diagramming Categorical Statements.....................................................................................................8
Assessing Categorical Syllogisms...........................................................................................................10
Summary...............................................................................................................................................11
Section II Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide................................................................................................13
Part I Introduction.................................................................................................................................13
Euthanasia.............................................................................................................................................13
Active/Passive Euthanasia.....................................................................................................................14
Suicide (in general)................................................................................................................................19
Part II The Morality of Euthanasia.........................................................................................................20
Active Voluntary Euthanasia..............................................................................................................21
The Autonomy Argument for Euthanasia..........................................................................................21
The Killing/Letting Die Argument.......................................................................................................21
The Slippery-Slope Argument Against Euthanasia.............................................................................21
The Utilitarian Version of the Argument............................................................................................21
Doing What Is in Everyone’s Best Interests.......................................................................................22
The Desire to Live..............................................................................................................................23
Part III CMA Text Summaries.................................................................................................................25

1
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Section I Categorical Logic

Readings
PCT Chapter Six

Introduction
• First formulated by Aristotle over two thousand years ago, it remains an important way of
thinking.

• For hundreds of years, logic (along with philosophy) was a required course in universities.

• Categorical logic: A form of logic whose focus is categorical statements, which make assertions
about categories, or classes, of things.

o We study the relationships not between entire statements but between components
known as the subject and predicate of a statement.

o In categorical logic, the primary tools are diagrams and calculation rules.

• In categorical reasoning, the statements or claims of interest are categorical statements.

o They say how certain classes of things are, or are not, included in other
classes of things.
Examples:
• All cows are vegetarians.

• No gardeners are plumbers.

• Some businesspeople are cheats.

Several reasons why categorical logic is still around after thousands of years.
o It is part of everyday reasoning.
o Understanding its rules leads to better, clearer thinking .

2
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Statements and Classes

• The words in categorical statements that name classes, or categories, of things are called terms.

Each categorical statement has two terms:

 Subject term: The first class, or group, named in a standard-form categorical statement.
 Predicate term: The second class, or group, named in a standard-form categorical
statement.

Example: All cats are carnivores.

 Subject term: cats

• Subject—what the sentence is about.
 Predicate term: carnivores
• Predicate—says something about the subject.

 The statement says that the class of cats is included within the class of carnivores.

All S are P

Which means: all “insert subject” are “insert predicate.”

There are four standard forms of categorical statements:

1. universal affirmative (“All dogs are mammals”);

2. universal negative (“No dogs are mammals”);
3. particular affirmative (“Some dogs are mammals”); and
4. particular negative (“Some dogs are not mammals”).

3
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Here is a different way to visualize the four forms above:

All S are P. (e.g., all cats are carnivores), so all members of S class are members of P class
No S are P. (e.g., no cats are carnivores), so, no member of the S class is included in P class
Some S are P. (e.g., some cats are carnivores), so, some of the S class are members of P class
Some S are not P. (e.g., some cats are not carnivores), so, some S class members are not members
of P

Let’s look at a helpful chart, the A, E, I, O, chart, which defines all categorical statements:
A: All S are P. (universal affirmative)
E: No S are P. (universal negative)
I: Some S are P. (particular affirmative)
O: Some S are not P. (particular negative)

The A, E, I, O, are traditional ways of expressing the different categorical statements. We do not care
what they really mean. We simply use them as A, E, I, O.

• The terms in these statements about cats are single words—just nouns naming a class.

 But subject and predicate terms can also consist of noun phrases and pronouns (e.g.,
cats that live outdoors and hunt mice).
• Pronouns are substitutes for nouns.
• E.g., I, he, she, you, it, we, or they.
 Subject and predicate terms can only be nouns, pronouns, and noun phrases (i.e.,
“carnivorous” cannot be used—it’s an adjective).

• Categorical statements have four parts:

We know the first two.
 Subject term
 Predicate term

 Copula: A linking verb that joins the subject and predicate terms
• Either are or are not
 Quantifier: Expresses the quantity, or number, of a categorical statement (e.g., all, no,
some)
• Slightly rephrased; all, none, some.
• Those are our only options.

• Categorical statements can also vary in quality, being either affirmative or negative.

 An affirmative categorical statement affirms that one class is entirely or partly included
in another.

• All mice are rodents.

4
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

• Some mice like cheese.

 A negative categorical statement denies that one class is entirely or partly included in
another.
• No mouse can fly.
• Some mice do not get caught.

Translations and Standard Form

• We translate ordinary statements into standard-form categorical statements so that we can
handle them more efficiently, to more easily evaluate the validity of arguments.

The pattern of all standard-form categorical statements:

Quantifier . . . Subject Term . . . Copula . . . Predicate Term

Terms
• When translating statements:
o Identify the terms (distinguish subject term from predicate term).
o Reword the terms so they name classes (if necessary).
o Put the subject and predicate terms in the standard order.

[Original] All dogs are loyal.

[Translation] All dogs are loyal animals.

[Original] Some guys have all the luck.

[Translation] Some guys are people who have all the luck.

[Original] No nations can thrive without fair immigration policies.

[Translation] No nations are things that can thrive without fair immigration policies.

Note: “only” is another word for “all.”

• The words “only” and “only if” precede the predicate term in an A-statement:
[Original] Only good listeners are wise advisers.
[Translation] All wise advisers are good listeners.

[Original] Only if something is a music file is it an .m4a file.

[Translation] All .m4a files are music files.

• The words “the only” precede the subject term in an A-statement:

[Original] Hamburgers are the only real junk food.
[Translation] All real junk food is hamburgers.

[Original] The only crimes prosecuted are murders.

[Translation] All prosecuted crimes are murders.

5
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

• Singular statements assert something about a single person or thing, including objects, places,
and times.
o Think of each subject term as naming a class in which there’s just one member.

[Original] Jamie Foxx is an actor.

[Translation] All persons identical to Jamie Foxx are actors.

Quantifiers
• Some quantifiers may be in non-standard form, and some may be unexpressed.

[Original] Every hockey player is an athlete.

[Translation] All hockey players are athletes.

[Original] Whoever is an artist is a genius.

[Translation] All artists are geniuses.

• Translate “most,” “a few,” “several,” “almost all,” and similar terms as “some.”
• When unexpressed quantifiers are not obvious, assume the one that you think would
make the statement most likely to be true.

[Original] Trent University students are radicals.

[Translation] Some Trent University students are radicals.

Examples with charts:

For each of the following

(1) identify the subject and predict terms, and
(2) name the form (universal affirmative, universal negative, particular affirmative, or particular
negative).

(1) No scientists are Baptists.

A: All S are P. (universal affirmative)

E: No S are P. (universal negative)
I: Some S are P. (particular affirmative)
O: Some S are not P. (particular negative)

Answers:
Subject=scientists
Predicate=Baptists
Form=universal negative or E

(2) All theologians who have studied arguments for the existence of God are scholars with serious
misgivings about the traditional notion of omnipotence.

6
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

A: All S are P. (universal affirmative)

E: No S are P. (universal negative)
I: Some S are P. (particular affirmative)
O: Some S are not P. (particular negative)

Answers:
S=all theologians
P=scholars with serious misgivings about the traditional notion of omnipotence
Form=universal affirmative, or A

(3) Some who play the stock market are not millionaires.

A: All S are P. (universal affirmative)

E: No S are P. (universal negative)
I: Some S are P. (particular affirmative)
O: Some S are not P. (particular negative)

Answers:
S=people who play the stock market
P=millionaires
Form=particular negative, or O

(4) Some terrorists are Canadian citizens.

A: All S are P. (universal affirmative)

E: No S are P. (universal negative)
I: Some S are P. (particular affirmative)
O: Some S are not P. (particular negative)

Answers:
S=terrorists
P=Canadian citizens
Form=particular affirmative, or I

(5) No `new Canadians` are supporters of changes in the immigration rules.

A: All S are P. (universal affirmative)

E: No S are P. (universal negative)
I: Some S are P. (particular affirmative)
O: Some S are not P. (particular negative)

7
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Answers:
S=new Canadians
P=immigration reform supporters
Form=universal negative, or E

Diagramming Categorical Statements

NOTE: You will “not” be tested on “Venn diagrams.”
The content that follows (Diagramming Categorical Statements) is merely to help you understand the
logic at hand. To be clear, “Venn diagrams” will not show up on any test in this course.

• You can graphically represent the relationship between subject and predicate terms with the
use of Venn diagrams.
• The diagrams consist of overlapping circles, each one representing a class specified by a term in
a categorical statement.

I-statement

• Circle on the left → Class of S

• Circle on the right → Class of P
• Area where circles overlap → Both S and P members are present
• X shows that at least one S member is a P member

O-statement
• X is in the S circle but outside the P circle.
• This shows that at least one S is not a P.

8
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

A-statement
• All members of the S class are also members of the P class.
• The part of the diagram where the S circle does not overlap the P circle is shaded (showing that
the area is empty).

E-statement
• The area where the S circle and the P circle overlap is shaded (empty)
• No members of S are also members of P.

• Three steps to diagramming a categorical statement:

1. Draw two overlapping circles, each one representing a term in the statement.
2. Label the circles with the terms.
3. Shade an area of a circle to show that an area is empty; insert an X to show that at least
one member of a class is also a member of another class.

9
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

• Venn diagrams can come in handy when you want to know whether two categorical statements
are equivalent.
• If the diagrams for the statements are identical, then the statements are equivalent.

• Example: Do the following statements say the same thing?

No S are P.
No P are S.
• If you diagram both statements, the answer will be immediately apparent.

The diagrams are identical → The statements are equivalent

Assessing Categorical Syllogisms

• A syllogism is a deductive argument made up of three statements: two premises and a
conclusion.
• A categorical syllogism is one consisting of three categorical statements (A, E, I, or O) interlinked
in a specific way.

• We refer to the predicate term in the conclusion as the predicate term for the whole argument.
• The subject term in the conclusion is treated as the subject term for the whole argument.
• The other term—which appears once in each premise, but not in the conclusion—is referred to
as the middle term.

Symbolizing with letters:

Where M is the middle term; P is the predicate term; and S is the subject term.

(1) All M are P.

(2) All S are M.
(3) Therefore, all S are P.

Example:

All elected officials are civil servants.

All politicians are elected officials.
Therefore, all politicians are civil servants.

Where S = politicians; P = civil servants; and M = elected officials.

10
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

• A valid categorical syllogism is such that if its premises are true, its conclusion must be true.

o That is, if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot possibly be false.

• We can check the validity of categorical syllogisms using the Venn diagram method.

• Since a categorical syllogism has three terms, we need three overlapping circles:

Top circle → Middle term

Bottom left circle → Subject term
Bottom right circle → Predicate term
Lower circles together represent the conclusion (since they stand for the relationship between S and P)

• Checking validity without Venn diagrams:

1. A valid categorical syllogism must possess precisely three terms.
2. A valid categorical syllogism cannot have two negative premises.
3. A valid categorical syllogism with at least one negative premise must have a negative
conclusion.

• If a categorical syllogism breaks even one of these rules, it is invalid.

• On the other hand, a categorical syllogism that does not violate any of these rules is not
necessarily valid. It may be defective for other reasons.

Summary
• Every categorical statement has a subject term and a predicate term.
• There are four standard forms of categorical statements:
1. Universal affirmative
2. Universal negative
3. Particular affirmative
4. Particular negative
• Categorical statements must be translated into standard form before you can work with them.
This involves:

11
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

1. Identifying terms
2. Ensuring that they designate classes
3. Determining the quantifiers
• Venn diagrams help us visualize categorical statements and tell us whether one statement is
equivalent to another.
• A categorical syllogism is an argument consisting of three categorical statements (two
categorical premises and a categorical conclusion) that are interlinked in a structural way.
• A syllogism consists of:
1. A subject term (appears in one premise and the conclusion)
2. A predicate term (appears in the other premise and the conclusion)
3. A middle term (appears once in each premise)
• The easiest way to check the validity of a categorical syllogism is to draw a three-circle Venn
diagram.
1. If the diagram reflects what is asserted in the conclusion, the argument is valid.
2. If it does not, the argument is invalid.

12
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Section II Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

Part I Introduction
Part II The Morality of Euthanasia
Part III CMA Reading Summaries

Readings
CMA Chapter 5
Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, et al: The Philosophers' Brief
Daniel Callahan: When Self-Determination Runs Amok
John Lachs: When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok
James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia

Part I Introduction
Euthanasia
 Directly or indirectly bringing about the death of another person for that person’s sake.
 Unlike suicide, someone else is involved in your death.
 The intention is mercy, not murder.

• Active euthanasia—Performing an action that directly causes someone to die; “mercy

killing.”

• Passive euthanasia—Allowing someone to die by not doing something that would prolong
life.

• Voluntary euthanasia—Euthanasia performed when competent patients voluntarily

request or agree to it.

• Involuntary euthanasia—Bringing about someone’s death against her will or without

asking for her consent while she is competent to decide.

The distinctions in definitions are not always clear. Consider this example to help clarify:

“A soldier has their stomach blown open by a shell burst. They are in great pain and screaming
in agony. They beg the army doctor to save their life. The doctor knows that they will die in ten
minutes whatever happens. As he has no painkilling drugs with him he decides to spare the
soldier further pain and shoots them dead.”

13
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/volinvol.shtml

• Nonvoluntary euthanasia—Euthanasia performed when patients are not competent to

choose it for themselves and have not previously disclosed their preferences.

Child euthanasia is an example of nonvoluntary euthanasia. Child euthanasia is illegal except in

the Netherlands.

Groningen Protocol
The termination of a child's life (under age 12) is acceptable if four requirements are met
(1) The presence of hopeless and unbearable suffering
(2) The consent of the parents to termination of life
(3) Medical consultation having taken place
(4) Careful execution of the termination

Active/Passive Euthanasia
• Some contend that the distinction is crucial:
active euthanasia is killing,
but passive euthanasia is letting die.

• Are you taking positive steps or just letting nature take its course?

• The AMA (American Medical Association) has sanctioned the distinction.

• Some argue that there is no morally significant difference between mercifully killing a
patient and mercifully letting the patient die.
(more on this below)

Ordinary vs. Extraordinary

 Ordinary—taking away food and water.
This is a means of euthanasia in which the chances of survival are rather high.

 Extraordinary—(passive euthanasia) taking away medical care, e.g., medicine.

This means of euthanasia results in a lower chance of survival.

14
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS)

• A patient’s taking his or her own life with the aid of a physician.
• The AMA (American Medical Association) has denounced PAS.
• Many people (including some physicians) support its use.
• It is legal only in Oregon.

The Burning Car Scenario

The best way to introduce you to the problem is to present you with a scenario. Here’s a classic
one:

You are a police officer and you just witnessed a highway accident. You pull over to the
scene of the accident. One of the cars involved flipped over several times and stopped
rolling upside down, pinning the driver between the mangled car seat and the steering
wheel. It would take a good half hour to cut through all the crushed metal to reach her
and pull her out. Moments after you arrive on the scene, the rear end of the car bursts
into flames. The fire will reach the driver in a matter of minutes. She’s already screaming
from the heat of the flames. She pleads with you to shoot her and put an end to her
misery.

So, the problem: Do you let her die horribly (painfully), or do you act and kill her?
What is the MORAL thing to do?

[Note: Assume, at first, that you would not be held in any way responsible for a criminal act.
How would your opinion change if you were accountable?]

The Practice in the Netherlands

A more general sort of scenario is that provided by the situation in the Netherlands.

15
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

[The following quoted from James E. White, ‘Problem Cases to Accompany Contemporary
Moral Problems’ (St. Paul: West Publishing Company, 1991), pp. 15-16:]
‘Euthanasia in the Netherlands; (Discussed in Patrick Cooke’s, “The Gentle Death,” Hippocrates,
September/October 1989, pp. 50-60.) Colour mine.

Euthanasia is officially against the law in the Netherlands. But doctors can avoid
prosecution for mercy killing by pleading a conflict of duty. If their patient has a justifi-
able wish to die, then this can outweigh any attempt to prolong life. The courts have set
certain guidelines for doctors to follow in actively killing a patient for the sake of mercy.
There must be an explicit and repeated request by the patient to be killed. The patient
must be suffering from severe physical or mental pain without hope of relief. The
patient’s decision must be free and enduring. All other options must be either
exhausted or refused by the patient. The doctor must consult another physician, and
record for the local prosecutor all events leading up to the death. But if these conditions
are satisfied, the doctor may kill the patient with a fatal injection. The Royal Dutch
Pharmacists Association has even published a doctor’s handbook, listing the most
efficient and least painful drugs to use in carrying out the killing. Two thirds of the Dutch
people favor the practice. Every year Dutch doctors perform euthanasia on anywhere
from 2,000 to 6,000 people. In most cases, the patients are near death, but recently
people with chronic bronchitis, multiple sclerosis, AIDS, and debilitating rheumatism
have been killed with consent.’

Criteria
(1) Repeated requests to be killed (not just to let die).
(2) Suffering from severe physical or mental pain “without” chance of relief.
(3) Decision must be free and enduring.
(4) All other options must be exhausted or refused by patient.
(5) Events must be recorded for legal purposes.

Is the practice in the Netherlands morally right or morally wrong?

The Current Situation in Canada

 Suicide is not a crime in Canada.

Law on Euthanasia, from Wiki:

"Euthanasia in Canada" in its legal voluntary form is called medically assisted dying (colloquially
assisted suicide or death with dignity) and became legal as of June 2016 to relieve the suffering
of terminally ill adults.

Strict laws govern access to legal assisted suicide in Canada. Medical assistance in dying is not
available to minors, nor can it be used to relieve the suffering of a mental illness, long-term
disability, or any curable condition. To prevent suicide tourism, it is available only to residents

16
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

eligible for Canadian healthcare coverage. Advanced directives are not allowed in Canada for
voluntary euthanasia and patients can not arrange to consent "in advance" to dying later at the
hands of a caregiver (e.g. such as in cases of dementia or Alzheimer's disease where patients
may want to die after they reach an advanced state of mental decline).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_Canada

Watch this short but important documentary.

This Ruling Changes Everything: The Story of Carter v. Canada
https://youtu.be/HBQtHDsncEU

Clearly the above video is couched on “one” side of the debate. So why has Canada been
against assisted suicide for so long?

The “OLD” situation in Canada needs some discussion.

 The “old” Criminal Code of Canada states in section 241(b) that

“Every one who ….(b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide, whether suicide ensues
or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding fourteen years”

Why the Law?

To prevent people from assisting in suicide:
(a) of those that are not mentally capable of making the decision and

(b) because of the “value that society place on human life” which “in the eyes of the law
makers, might easily be eroded if assistance in committing suicide were to be decriminalized.”

Kluge, Eike-Henner W. (2000), "“Assisted Suicide, Ethics and the Law: The Implication of Autonomy and Respect for
Persons, Equality and Justice, and Beneficence.”", in Prado, C.G., Assisted Suicide: Canadian Perspectives, Ottawa,
Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 83

Sue Rodriguez
 Sue Rodriguez was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Or Lou Gehrig's
disease.
 She requested that the Canadian Supreme Court allow someone to aid her in ending her
life.
 The request argued on the basis of autonomy and respect for every person:
that “everyone has the right to self-determination subject only to an unjust
infringement on the equal and competing rights of others.”
Kluge, Eike-Henner W. (2000), "“Assisted Suicide, Ethics and the Law: The Implication of Autonomy and
Respect for Persons, Equality and Justice, and Beneficence.”", in Prado, C.G., Assisted Suicide: Canadian
Perspectives, Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 84

17
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

 The main argument appealed to the principle of equality and justice which states that
“everyone should be treated equally, and deviations from equality of treatment are
permissible only to achieve equity and justice.” (Ibid. 86)

Why?
 The ALS meant that she would inevitably lose her voluntary motor control.
 This loss of control meant that she would be disabled.
 Suicide is not illegal.
 Ms. Rodriguez argued that if the courts refused her request to have the help of another
person to end her life (her only way of committing suicide) that they would be
discriminating against her for her disability.

The courts refused her request in 1992.

In 1994 she received the anonymous support of a doctor who helped her end her life.

Was the court’s decision moral?

Was her decision moral?

Sue Rodriguez: Designer death vs. mericiful end

Two ethicists debate Rodriguez's case.
Commentary on Sue’s case:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/Digital+Archives/Politics/Rights+and+Freedoms/ID/1767244872/?
sort=MostPopular

Definitions of Death
• Traditional view—Death is the cessation of breathing and heartbeat.

• Standard in law and medicine—Whole brain view: An individual should be judged dead
when all brain functions permanently stop.

• Alternative view—Higher brain standard: Individuals are dead when the higher brain
functions responsible for consciousness permanently close down.

What is your intuition on this?

When would you consider yourself dead?

Are you dead right now? (lack of consciousness)

Suicide (in general)

The World Health Organization (WHO):
18
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

 Someone around the globe commits suicide every 40 seconds.

 In 2000, 815,000 people committed suicide—more than double the number of

people who die as a direct result of armed conflict every year (306,600).

 For people between the ages of 15 and 44, suicide is the fourth leading cause of
death.
World Health Organization (October 2002). World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva.
www.who.int.

Canada and Ontario

The suicide rate for Canadians, as measured by the WHO, is 15 per 100,000
people. Yet, according to numerous studies, rates are even higher among specific
groups. For example, the suicide rate for Inuit peoples living in Northern Canada
is between 60 and 75 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than the general
population.… According to Statistics Canada, between 1997 and 1999, there was
a 10 percent increase in suicides across Canada, from 3,681 to 4,074. In Ontario
alone, suicides rose from 930 in 1997 to 1,032 in 2001.
(http://www.ontario.cmha.ca/fact_sheets.asp?cID=3965) Colour mine.

From Wiki
Approximately 3,500 suicides take place in Canada annually, slightly below deaths due
to cancers of the colon and breast. Suicide is the seventh-most common cause of death
among Canadian males, and tenth-highest among both sexes combined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Canada

Is suicide murder?
Is it morally wrong?

What is murder?

Murder is wrongfully killing

3 criteria:
(1) Victim must have moral status (flies do not).
(2) The killing must be intentional.
(3) The victim must be innocent.

Does suicide match these three criteria?

Two Main Arguments for Suicide

(1) Self-ownership—I can do as I please.
(2) Non-paternalistic—no one can tell me what is best for me.
No one can know enough about me except me.

Against:
19
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

(1) God created you therefore owns you in some significant respect.
(2) Society would not survive.
(3) Other people own you in some significant respect—family and friends:
(depend on you, e.g., because you have set the situation up in a certain way—having
children—or because you are just a part of it—being a child of someone.)
Suicide usually affects others.

Deontology (we have a duty to reason)

Kant
 Suicide is treating your future self as a mere means to your present self.
(you are ending your future self to make your present self happier)

 You are violating yourself.

 You are disrespecting your future self.

Teleology (life is about purpose)

 Pursue excellence in life (purpose) not death.

Consequentialist (the ends justify the means)

 You will not receive greater pleasure than pain.

 If you know the pain will be greater than pleasure, go ahead, but overall, or on the
whole, suicide is not a good move.

Part II The Morality of Euthanasia

Active Voluntary Euthanasia

Arguments for:
– Autonomy: Respecting people’s inherent right of self-determination means
respecting their autonomous choices about ending their lives.

20
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

– Beneficence: If we are in a position to relieve the severe suffering of another

without excessive cost to ourselves, we have an obligation to do so.

Arguments against:
– Moral difference between killing and letting die:
Killing is worse than letting die, so giving a patient a lethal injection to effect an
easy death is wrong, but disconnecting his feeding tube may be permissible.

– Moral difference between intending someone’s death and not intending but
foreseeing it: The former is wrong; the latter is permissible.

The Autonomy Argument for Euthanasia

• Autonomous persons should have the right to choose how they will live and how they
will die.

• The right is preeminent, limited only when their choices might bring harm to others.

• This right to die, though strong, does not necessarily compel others.

The Killing/Letting Die Argument

• There is no morally significant difference between killing and letting die.

• If there is no difference, then since passive euthanasia is permissible, and it is morally

equivalent to active euthanasia, active euthanasia must be permissible as well.

The Slippery-Slope Argument Against Euthanasia

 If the general acceptance or approval of active voluntary euthanasia leads to
widespread abuses (unjustified killing), then the practice is morally wrong.

 The general acceptance or approval will lead to widespread abuses.

 Therefore, active voluntary euthanasia is wrong.

The Utilitarian Version of the Argument

‘The utilitarian argument may be elaborated as follows:

1. Any action or social policy is morally right if it serves to increase the amount of happiness in
the world or to decrease the amount of misery. Conversely, an action or social policy is morally
wrong if it serves to decrease happiness or to increase misery.

2. The policy of killing, at their own request, hopelessly ill patients who are suffering great pain
would decrease the amount of misery in the world.

21
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

3. Therefore, such a policy would be morally right.

First problem with the utilitarian argument:

The first premise of this argument, (1), states the Principle of Utility, which is the basic utili-
tarian assumption.
 Today most philosophers think that this principle is wrong, because they think that the
promotion of happiness and the avoidance of misery are not the only morally important
things.
Happiness, they say, is only one among many values that should be promoted: freedom,
justice, and a respect for people’s rights are also important.
 Second problem with the utilitarian argument:
We could decrease the amount of suffering in the world by killing people who don’t
want to die.

Doing What Is in Everyone’s Best Interests

1. If an action promotes the best interests of everyone concerned and violates no one’s rights,
then that action is morally acceptable.

2. In at least some cases, active euthanasia promotes the best interests of everyone concerned
and violates no one’s rights.

3. Therefore, in at least some cases, active euthanasia is morally acceptable.

Latimer: No regrets about killing disabled daughter

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110307/latimer-ctv-interview-1100307/
(11:54 minutes)
You may need to google the video to find it (sometimes just the news story shows up)

Just months after being granted full parole, Robert Latimer shares his story with Canada AM
and explains how he was frustrated with prosecutors who repeatedly tried to depict his
daughter as a happy little girl. He says she was in serious pain that became more severe every
day.

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110307/latimer-ctv-interview-

1100307/#ixzz1m5r7o6F5

The Desire to Live

Here we will examine a reconstruction of Joseph V. Sullivan’s ‘Argument from Man’s Desire to
Live’ [Rachels, pp. 206-207, paragraphs 35-38]:

22
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

TEXT:
[35] Every being has an inclination, or appetite, to fill up the measure of its adequate
perfection, and all that is in any way capable of satisfying such inclination is said
to be good for that being. All creatures, even the plants and inanimate sub-
stances, have a natural tendency or affinity implanted in them that impels them
blindly toward what is “suitable to and perfective of their nature, independently
of all cognition on their part.” So much does every appetite tend toward good
that St. Thomas defines good as the object or end of appetite....
[36] St. Thomas uses this argument concerning the natural appetite in man to prove
suicide unnatural, for he says: “It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself ... because
everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps
itself in being, and resists corruption so far as it can. Wherefore suicide is
contrary to the inclination of nature....”
[37] This inclination in man to prolong his life is verified in practice. It must be
remembered that man differs from all other earthly creation in that he possesses
an intellect and a will. Though his vegetative and sensuous powers tend
necessarily to his continued existence, yet his will is free either to work toward
the common goal of a healthy life or to choose self-destruction. The fact that
society exists today indicates that man throughout the ages has chosen to live.
Man’s desire to live is indicated by the great care given human life, from prenatal
care to the care given the aged in the social institutions throughout the world.
Science has as its greatest goal the prolongation of life. The many health
campaigns carried on within the United States, together with the drives to
overcome cancer, tuberculosis, and heart disease, are all very indicative of man’s
desire to live. Even the daily care man gives his physical and mental health
testifies to this natural desire to live. War itself is an argument for the value of
life, for man’s greatest fear in wartime is that either he or some dear friend may
be killed. All of these facts make most obvious that universally man loves life and
wants to live.
[38] From this universal desire to live we have a strong argument against the direct
killing of the innocent, and hence against all forms of euthanasia.
Reconstruction:

Premise 1:
‘man has chosen to live’; that is, ‘man loves life and wants to live’

This statement is supported by the following observations:

(a) society exists today
(b) we give great care to human life
(c) the greatest goal of science is the prolongation of life
(d) there are many health campaigns and drives to overcome life-threatening diseases
(e) we give daily care to our physical and mental health

23
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Premise 2 (implied):
If man has chosen to live, he has a natural inclination to live.

Conclusion I:
Man has a ‘universal desire’, i.e. a natural inclination, to live.

Premise 3 (implied):
Whatever interferes with or contradicts that natural inclination is unnatural.
(By definition of the terms ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’.)

Premise 4 (implied):
The direct killing of the innocent interferes with that natural inclination.

Premise 5 (implied):
Whatever is unnatural is morally wrong.
(This is stated in Natural Law Theory, which Sullivan here employs as his theoretical
foundation.)

Conclusion II (implied):
The direct killing of the innocent is morally unjustified.

Premise 6 (implied):
Euthanasia is a form of the direct killing of the innocent.
(This is implied in the following passage: ‘the direct killing of the innocent, and hence against all
forms of euthanasia.’)

Conclusion III:
Euthanasia is morally unjustified.

24
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

Part III CMA Text Summaries

Reading Summaries (Vaughn, CMA)

Daniel Callahan: When Self-Determination Runs Amok

Callahan is opposed to the use of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. He argues that a
person's right of self-determination does not morally justify someone else killing that person,
even for mercy's sake. He contends that, contrary to common opinion, there is indeed a moral
difference between killing and letting die. A policy that lets physicians practice euthanasia will
lead to dire consequences and pervert the profession of medicine.

John Lachs: When Abstract Moralizing Runs Amok

In this response to Daniel Callahan's condemnation of voluntary euthanasia, Lachs argues that
Callahan misunderstands the suffering and motivations of those who ask to die. Moreover,
Lachs says, it is implausible to claim as Callahan does that a right to kill ourselves cannot be
transferred to someone else. Callahan maintains that there are no good moral reasons to limit
euthanasia once the practice has been legitimated, but Lachs contends that good moral reasons
can come from our consideration of important distinctions and specific circumstances. Callahan
suggests that self-determination will have us "run amok" in taking lives without restraint;
however, Lachs declares that "No serious moralist has ever argued that self-determination must
be absolute."

Ronald Dworkin, Thomas Nagel, et al: The Philosophers' Brief

In the 1997 Supreme Court cases Vacco v. Quill andWashington v. Glucksberg, six prominent
philosophers presented this brief, urging that states should recognize a right to assisted suicide.
They argued that "individuals have a constitutionally protected interest in making those grave
decisions [about their own deaths] for themselves, free from the imposition of any religious or
philosophical orthodoxy by court or legislature." They conceded that states have a legitimate
interest in protecting people from irrational or unstable decisions about their dying but
asserted that states cannot deny people wishing to die a chance to demonstrate that their
decisions are informed, stable, and free. They maintained that there is no morally significant
difference between a physician deliberately withdrawing medical treatment to let a patient die
from a natural process and a physician hastening the patient’s death by more active means.

James Rachels: Active and Passive Euthanasia

In this famous essay, Rachels argues that the traditional distinction between killing and letting

25
Lecture Notes, J.C. Robinson

die is untenable, that "killing is not in itself any worse than letting die." If so, then active
euthanasia is no worse than passive euthanasia. Thus doctors may have to distinguish between
active and passive euthanasia for legal reasons, but "they should not give the distinction any
added authority and weight by writing it into official statements of medical ethics."

26