DYING WITH DIGNITY AND THE ARGUMENT FROM CONSCIENCE

Abstract

This paper examines some of the arguments in favor of and against “mercy killing”. Euthanasia is defined as the voluntary or involuntary killing of a terminally ill human being suffering from unbearable pain and intolerable suffering. Literally, euthanasia means “good death” or “dying with dignity.” But the argument for mercy killing hides under the ill motive of emancipating oneself the burden of having to bear a life that appears meaningless. This inquiry argues that such a position is morally unacceptable since it violates life itself. But the reason this paper puts forward is not based on the stewardship argument, one that says life is sacred. The stewardship argument is weak compared to the “right to die” advanced by liberal philosophers. As an alternative, the “argument from conscience”, which puts emphasis on recognizing the moral mistake of reducing the value of human life into something that is instrumentalist, is proposed. James Rachels’s utilitarian argument for mercy killing seeks to diminish the suffering in the world. But what it hides is that it actually mistreats human life as something that is quantifiable. The argument from conscience is a humanist position that is grounded in the love and attention for the dying.