Applying Aristotle's Virtue Theory To Euthanasia

Virtue Theory as applied to Euthenasia

Many people see humans as having an inherent purpose on this planet. That we are all significant individuals part of a larger system. Within this concept, several philosophers have tried to determine HOW we should act, and which decisions we SHOULD make. According to Utilitarianism and Kantianism there are guidelines and rules we should follow in order to make a morally correct decision. Virtue Theory goes a little further than that, while still remaining quite ambiguous, by saying that the development of somebody’s virtues is all that’s important. These virtues will in turn give you the correct motives for the correct decisions. Virtue Theory considers and works around the individuality of
each person on our planet. It is by no means perfect but it avoids universalizing rules that people should follow. Euthenasia is a hotly contested topic within the realm of philosophers. Regardless of your standpoint on the issue, it all breaks down to how you view our purpose on this planet. One way to look at it is that we are all lucky to have been given the gift of life (by God, evolution or the flying spaghetti monster) and we should cherish that gift. By this line of thought, euthanizing somebody is unethical because ending your life would be violating the sanctity of life. On the other hand, others perceive each person’s individual purpose to be happy in a functioning society. Following this school of thought, euthanasia is totally ethical because it will bring a higher level of personal well-being to the patient. If the only way to end months of suffering is death, then how could it be ethical to keep somebody alive. Virtue Ethics considers the character of a moral person as the key force behind ethical behavior, as opposed to rules that define the right or wrong of an action. Rather than trying to define absolute rules and outcomes for situations, virtue theory places less emphasis on which rules people need to follow and more on developing good character traits. There is not a whole fuss about finding a universal rule pertaining to moral behavior that can apply to everyone on the planet in every situation. The idea is that these ‘good’ character traits will help guide you towards making the right decision when faced with a moral choice later on in life. It is not simply restricted to the ‘fine-tuning’ of certain characteristics, or virtues, but also about correcting certain vices. These bad habits of character like anger and greed will ultimately inhibit a person’s ability to make clear-headed, morally correct decisions. According to Aristotle, acquiring good habits of character helps people regulate their emotions and reason that helps them make morally correct decisions. Plato defines his four key virtues as wisdom, temperance, courage and justice.

When examining the issue of Euthenasia, maybe we should start by breaking down the word itself.
As defined by the New Oxford Dictionary, euthanasia is ‘the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma’. The word itself is made up of two Greek words, ‘eu’ a prefix meaning ‘good’ and ‘thanatos’ meaning ‘death’. So in the language of the ancient Greeks, when somebody undergoes euthanasia, their death is good. Not good in the sense that somebody is getting personal gratification because you no longer walk the face of the earth, more in the sense that the patient followed the ‘right’ path, the most painless
one. Lets take for example the virtue of courage.
In this case, somebody could perceive euthanasia as a courageous act to assist somebody you love. Whether it is to relieve pain or end a history with an incurable disease, essentially our inherent virtues will help us chose the right decision to help a friend in a very dire situation. The right decision in this case would be to grant the final wish of a patient pleading to end months of suffering and hardship. I think that one issue many people have with euthanasia is that in certain circumstances, involved family members could be trying to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain. Whether they want to euthanize the relative because they wish to be freed of the burden or because they want to get their money, in both instances those persons’ actions are defined by the vices that influence their actions. Greed, rashness and selfishness are all vices that will inhibit an individual’s ability to make clear headed morally correct decisions. In one of his books, Aristotle refers to these invirtuous people as having a distinctly distorted moral vision. Because they lack the proper virtues to guide them in decision-making, the invirtuous could actually end up harming themselves as well as other people. So really any situation in which somebody is prematurely or unjustly euthanized would be immoral because it is an action influenced by someone’s vices. This action does not follow the virtues of happiness or courage, but
rather the vices of weakness and selfishness. The patient who is euthanized has had his/her life ended even though that may not have been the outcome they would have chosen had they been in a state to chose for themselves.

In respose to all those people who argue that life is a devine gift we should all cherish and care for tediously, what about when life has been reduced to a sterile bed in a bland hospital. Should that be considered ‘living’. It’s not like once visiting hours are over all the patients have raves in the corridors. Life has been reduced to one of little stimulus and engagement, essential for complex brains such as ours. If somebody is confined to their bed and in no conscious state, then really that person is no longer a living member of society. Sure, they still have a spiritual presence and one in memory, but there are no emotions, thoughts nor active presence, which are characteristic of a happy person. Virtue Ethics is unique because it does not provide an all-purpose theory of right actions that can be applied to any ethical situation. Instead, it does more justice to our moral discourse and physcology. Considering the complex emotions and thoughts humans undergo, this seems to be much more suitable. Euthanasia forces somebody to chose whether or not death can actually be preferable to remaining alive, or in some similar state. This is like the other classic moral issues commonly debated in philosophy, abortion, marijuana legalization and the death penalty. Until you fully experience what is being debated, there is no way to grasp the full meaning of what is being considered.