A Critical Outlook on Rosenberg’s Theory of Euthanaisia

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Professor of Islamic Philosophy and Kalām, Imam Sadiq University

2 PhD Student of Theology (Philosophy of Religion and new theological issues) at the University of Qom

Abstract

In his book, while referring to anti-euthanasia arguments such as "prima facie right to life", "possibility of arbitrary encroachments", and "venerability of moral independence", Rosenberg draws a careful sketch of pro-euthanasia arguments including "possibility of preventing any potential abuses" and "necessity of eschewing incurable sufferings". For him, this challenge has been given rise not out of realities but out of the two sides' different perspectives upon human rights; the challenge lies at the core of the fact that whether "moral" species of human individual derives from her "natural species" or from "functional species". Considering the fact that haecceity in all human beings is justifiable, Rosenberg comes to realize the two sides as mainly different in responding to the question whether the human haecceity is a stable/permanent degree or a transient one. He himself takes it for granted that the individuals' "moral" species, just like their "legal" species, comes true as an acquired phenomenon irrespective of reality to the extent that he treats the individual as having absolute, negative, and passive right to life. By indicating the confusion lied between moral "permissibility/permission" for and moral "desirability" of euthanasia, he deems analytic philosophy to obviate all of these challenges. However, he finally assumes the problem of the moral agreeability of euthanasia as unendingly controversial, and sees any judgments pertaining to the problem as originating from common sense as well as scientific shifts thereby becoming exposed toward gradual changes. Rosenberg's view grapples, as his own theory's blind spots, mostly with such problems as begging for the question fallacy, relativism, and contradiction all of which gain their own roots in his materialistic standpoint on the nature of humankind.

Keywords

References

 
- اکبری، رضا. (1385). مسألۀ دشوار شعور و ثنوی‌گرایی ذاتی. حکمت و فلسفه.۲(۳)، 43-54.
- پویمن، لوئیس. (1376 و 1377). نقدی بر نسبیت اخلاقی. ترجمۀ محمود فتحعلی. نقد و نظر،    ۴(۱۴ـ۱۳)، ۳۲۴ـ۳۴۳.
- جوادی، محسن. (1374). جاودانگی اصول اخلاقی و نظریۀ اعتبارات. معرفت. ۱۵، 22-26.
- شمالی، محمدعلی. (1388). نسبیت‌گرایی اخلاقی: نماهاو مبناها.  پژوهش‌های فلسفی کلامی. ۱۱(۲)،  ۵۷ ـ۷۷.
- طالعی اردکانی، محمد و مصباح، علی. (1394). نقد و بررسی انواع نومینالیسم با بهره‌گیری از دیدگاه‌های علامه طباطبائی. معرفتفلسفی. ۱۲(۳)، ۱۱۴ـ ۱۱۹.
- غیاثوند، مهدی. (1390). معانی چهارگانۀ آگاهی. ذهن. ۴۵، ۱۴۷ـ۱۷۴.
- هاشمی، زهرا و مرتضوی، محمدجواد. (1387). اتانازی از دیدگاه اسلام و اخلاق پزشکی نوین.  اخلاق و تاریخ پزشکی. ۱(۳)، ۳۵ـ۴۳.
- Battin, M.P. (2001). Safe, Legal, Rare? Physician-Assisted Suicide and Cultural Change in the Future. InL. Kopelman, K. A. De Ville(Eds.). Physician Assisted Suicide: What Are the Issues (Pp. 187-203). Boston. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Benatar, D. (2011). A legal Right to Die: Responding to Slippery Slope and Abuse Arguments. Current Oncology, 18 (5), 206, 207.
- Biggs, H. (2001). Euthanasia; Death with Dignity and the Law. Oxford. Hart Publishing.
- Burley, J. & Harris, J. (2004). A Companion to Genetics. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing.
- Chalmers, D. J. (1996). Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. New York. Oxford University Press.
- -------------- .(2010).The Character of Consciousness, New York: Oxford University Press.
- Cohen, A. I. & Wellman, Ch. H. (2005). Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Oxford. Blackwell Publishing.
- Dworkin, R. (1993). Life’s Dominion, An Argument about abortion, Euthanasia and Individual Freedom. New York. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.
- Ebrahimi, N. (2012). The Ethics of Euthanasia.. Australian Medical Student Journal, 3(1),73-75.
- Glover, J. (1990). Causing Death and Saving Lives. New York. Penguin Books.
- Griffiths, J. Weyers, H. & Adams, M. (2008). Euthanasia and Law in Europe. Portland. Hart Publishing.
- Gorsuch, N. M. (2006). The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Princeton & Oxford. Princeton University Press.
- Harris, J. (2001). The Value of Life; an Introduction to Medical Ethics. New York & London. Routledge.
- Keown, J. (2004). Euthanasia Ethics and Public Policy: An Argument Against Legalization, Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
- McDougall, J.F. & Gorman, M. (2008). Euthanasia: A Reference Handbook. Oxford. ABC-CLI.
- Paterson, C. (2007). Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: A Natural Law Ethics Approach . Burlington. Ashgate Publishing Company.
- Raus, K. & Sterckx, S. (2015). Euthanasia for Mental Suffering, M. Cholbi, J. Varelius (Eds.), New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide, pp 79- 96. Montreal. Springer International Publishing.
- Rosenberg, J. F. (1983). Thinking Clearly about Death. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Savulescu, J. (2015). Autonomy, Interests, Justice and Active Medical Euthanasia. In M. Cholbi, & J. Varelius (Eds.), New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide (pp 41- 58). Montreal. Springer International Publishing.
- Singer, P. (1994). Rethinking Life and Death, the collapse of our traditional ethics, New York: St Martin’s Press.
- Somerville, M. (2014). Death Talk; the Case Against Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. McGill. Queen’s University Press.
-Young, R. (2017). Voluntary Euthanasia. E.N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/, web. 28 Feb. 2017.
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics