Philosphical Views on the Issue of Euthanasia

Hobbes is a difficult philosopher to analyze with respect to euthanasia. His morality is based on the laws of the state and the sovereign power of the rule of the state. If the sovereign sees euthanasia as legal and desirable, it is so, in Hobbes' philosophy. If the sovereign sees euthanasia as undesirable, it shall be so. Hobbes makes it clear that individual morality is dangerous because it is not based on reason or on the desire for social order:

But whatsoever is the object of any man's appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good: and the object of his hate and aversion, evil; and of his contempt, vile and inconsiderable (Denise 130).

If every individual in the state were to determine for himself or herself whether euthanasia was the desired way of death for himself or herself or a loved one, for medical or other reasons, this would mean civil chaos to Hobbes and the first step in the decline of the state.

For Hobbes, ethical, dutiful and purpose-based considerations all comes down to t

. . .
sia. Most of Butler's writings are subtle and complex, but when he comes to a conclusion about ethics, he seems simplistic: . . . Let any plain honest man, before he engages in any course of action, ask himself, Is this I am going about right, or is it wrong? Is it good, or is it evil? I do not in the least doubt, but that this question would be answered agreeably to truth and virtue, by almost any fair man in almost any circumstance. Neither do there appear any cases which look like exceptions to this. . . . (Denise 159). This statement would seem to make unnecessary all of Butler's subtle philosophy. Is he truly saying that any "plain honest" person clearly knows if what he is doing is right or wrong, without exception? Does this mean that the individual whose parent or spouse or child is beyond medical help, or is drugged into a stupor to prevent horrible pain, or is in a lifelong coma, will clearly know what to do with no doubt? If Butler is against taking a human life in such a situation, as seems likely, does he really believe a person choosing against euthanasia will have no doubts? Butler's philosophy seems to be both too abstract and subtle, and then too simplistic and ignorant of human ambivalence. He would probably
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
God Christ, Joseph Butler, Stuart Mill, , Christian Butler, respect euthanasia, human life, California Wadsworth, sovereign euthanasia, beyond medical help, beyond medical, practice euthanasia, common power, euthanasia considered, plain honest, legal desirable, issue euthanasia,
Approximate Word count = 1407
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page)