- The Divine command theory, which is where someone believes that they should live life according to the rules laid down in a religious work. Often this includes a clause stating that killing of any kind is wrong.
- Natural law theory argues that people are all linked by a common humanity and it is part of human nature to live according to moral principles. To have ideas about natural justice and rights is a natural product of being human.
- Situationism theory suggests that the only thing that makes an act right or wrong is the presence or absence of love. Love is one thing in the world that is completely good and defines the difference between good and evil.
It is difficult to claim that the statement “People cannot cope with a moral problem just by using moral reasoning” is valid because there is no reference to which moral philosophy is being used as part of moral reasoning. Therefore, this leads us to the conclusion that the statement refers to all moral philosophies. If this is the case, then by examining a particular moral problem as viewed from the standpoint of Divine command theory, natural law and situationism, we will be able to test the validity of the statement.
Euthanasia is the process whereby a person is humanely killed or allowed to commit suicide in a dignified manner. It is often used to give freedom to those who suffer a huge amount of pain that causes a decline in their quality of life.
The philosophy of the Divine command theory suggests that it is not permissible to perform euthanasia as a way of releasing pain and preventing humiliation at death. The main attribute of the theory is based on the religious law ‘Do not kill’ and therefore to perform an act of euthanasia would be breaking this law.
This is in contrast to the Natural Law theory, which suggests that life is based on ‘the survival of the fittest’, and therefore euthanasia would be acceptable as it is removing the weaker people from society, especially those who suffer from long-term pain. However, the theory recognises that individuals have rights as a human being and may not want to undertake such actions but may want to make all efforts to prolong life
Situationism on the other hand states that as long as the action is undertaken with love it is acceptable. Therefore, if performing euthanasia is to free someone that you love from pain and suffering then it is an acceptable act. In simple terms Situationism would ask the following question of any situation with a view to obtaining an answer - “If such an action were to be undertaken, would it be harming those concerned?” If the answer were a “Yes”, then people who believe in Situationism would be against such practices as euthanasia.
Pro-life followers and religious people say that life is a sacred gift from God and therefore euthanasia is against the word and will of God. They would also say that suffering may have real value within an individual’s life and that there have been times that healing has occurred that has broken the long-term distress. They would also consider that it is up to God to choose when human’s die and that euthanasia is against God’s plan and therefore should not be allowed.
From the arguments above, it is clear that the different moral philosophies disagree with each other over the subject of euthanasia. This leads us to the conclusion that the statement “People cannot cope with a moral problem just by using moral reasoning” cannot be valid as there would be no agreement from all the moral philosophies.