Euthanasia, virtue ethics and the law.

New Zealand bioethics journal Pub Date : 2002-02-01
Liezl van Zyl
{"title":"Euthanasia, virtue ethics and the law.","authors":"Liezl van Zyl","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Following the recent revival of virtue ethics, a number of ethicists have discussed the moral problems surrounding euthanasia by drawing on concepts such as compassion, benevolence, death with dignity, mercy, and by inquiring whether euthanasia is compatible with human flourishing. Most of these writers assert, or simply assume, that their arguments concerning the morality of euthanasia also support their views with regard to legislation. I argue, against these writers, that legislation cannot and should not be based on our moral and religious beliefs concerning whether euthanasia allows a person to die a good death. I then outline an Aristotelian approach to the role of law and government in a good society, according to which the task of the legislator is not to ensure that people actually act virtuously, but is instead to make it possible for them to choose to live (and die) well by ensuring that they have access to the goods that are necessary for flourishing. In the second half of the paper I apply this approach to the question of whether voluntary active euthanasia should be legalised by asking (1) whether euthanasia always deprives people of the necessary conditions for flourishing, and (2) whether the option to request euthanasia is ever necessary for flourishing.</p>","PeriodicalId":87199,"journal":{"name":"New Zealand bioethics journal","volume":"3 1","pages":"18-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Zealand bioethics journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Following the recent revival of virtue ethics, a number of ethicists have discussed the moral problems surrounding euthanasia by drawing on concepts such as compassion, benevolence, death with dignity, mercy, and by inquiring whether euthanasia is compatible with human flourishing. Most of these writers assert, or simply assume, that their arguments concerning the morality of euthanasia also support their views with regard to legislation. I argue, against these writers, that legislation cannot and should not be based on our moral and religious beliefs concerning whether euthanasia allows a person to die a good death. I then outline an Aristotelian approach to the role of law and government in a good society, according to which the task of the legislator is not to ensure that people actually act virtuously, but is instead to make it possible for them to choose to live (and die) well by ensuring that they have access to the goods that are necessary for flourishing. In the second half of the paper I apply this approach to the question of whether voluntary active euthanasia should be legalised by asking (1) whether euthanasia always deprives people of the necessary conditions for flourishing, and (2) whether the option to request euthanasia is ever necessary for flourishing.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
安乐死、美德伦理与法律。
随着最近美德伦理学的复兴,许多伦理学家通过引用同情、仁慈、有尊严的死亡、仁慈等概念来讨论围绕安乐死的道德问题,并询问安乐死是否与人类繁荣相容。这些作者中的大多数断言,或者只是假设,他们关于安乐死道德的论点也支持他们关于立法的观点。我反对这些作者,我认为立法不能也不应该基于我们的道德和宗教信仰,即安乐死是否允许一个人死得好。然后,我概述了亚里士多德关于法律和政府在一个良好社会中的作用的方法,根据该方法,立法者的任务不是确保人们实际上行为高尚,而是通过确保他们能够获得繁荣所必需的商品,使他们有可能选择活得好(和死得好)。在本文的后半部分,我将这种方法应用于自愿主动安乐死是否应该合法化的问题上,我提出了以下问题:(1)安乐死是否总是剥夺了人们繁荣的必要条件,(2)请求安乐死的选择是否对繁荣是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
In that case: Shane is a professional rugby player who has a contract with a Super 12 team. Response. New Zealand's ethics committees. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. Protection of health research participants in the United States: a review of two cases. Cytogeneticists' stories around the ethics and social consequences of their work: a New Zealand case study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1