1.0 Introduction

In recent times, the morality or immorality of euthanasia

has kept on generating heated and controversial debate among

scholars, including philosophers and even within the medical

circle. As a point in fact, two fundamental questions keep

recurring in medical practice and applied ethics today. These

questions are: a) by protracted existence through modern

medicine, should a patient be allowed to die? b) Is it morally

right for a physician to assist euthanasia? These questions

are so controversial to the point that many doctors and moral

philosophers today find themselves in a dilemma.

With regard to the foregoing, some people are of the

opinion that individuals have the right and freedom to ask for

euthanasia if they wish to, whereas others do not see any

reason why a moral agent should ask for such, and so, it is,

for them, immoral to make such a request. Nevertheless, it is

due to the failure of men to reach a moral compromise on this

issue that today we find dehumanisation in our world. The

advance in the science of biotechnology has reduced the

dignity of man, thus giving rise to what Pope John Paul II

called the culture of death. This is for the reason that when man

1

loses his moral consciousness, he becomes less valuable,

threatened and poisoned thus giving rise to cloning,

euthanasia, eugenics, abortion. This essay is intended to

reinvigorate this moral consciousness in man and put him in

focus towards attaining a moral scientific order.

The crux of this essay, therefore, is to examine and

justify the morality of euthanasia in relation to emotvisim

and James Rachels. As a point in fact, the plethora of ideas

in this paper abounds within the ethical, social and legal

circles. Given this therefore, this essay shall make an

exposition of the problem at hand. Viewing the various

arguments for and against euthanasia, to see if really on any

grounds, we are morally justified in legalising euthanasia,

our aim in this essay is not to solve the problem but to look

at the positions among the groups of euthanasia to see which

is more plausible.

By way of methodology, this essay shall give a

definitional analysis of euthanasia, to be followed by the

forms or types of euthanasia, arguments for and against

euthanasia. This will lead to the discussion of emotivism and

the morality of euthanasia in James Rachels. This shall then

2

be followed by the evaluation and concluding reflection of the

essay.

2.0 Definitional Analysis of Euthanasia

Euthanasia has been conceived in different ways. As such,

different scholars and thinkers have offered different

definitions to explain what euthanasia could be understood to

be. This stems from the fact that different schools of

thoughts have their coinage for the term. Thus, there is no

unanimous agreement on a single definition of the term.

Etymologically, euthanasia which is also called “mercy

killing” is got from two Greek words eu which means well or good

and thanatos meaning death. Literally, the term is used to refer

to “a good death.” According to Kluge Eike-Henner, euthanasia is

“the act of ending the life of a person from compassionate

motives, when he is already terminally ill or when his

suffering has become unbearable.”1 In a similar fashion,

Heifetz and Mangel defined it as “the wilful putting to death

of an individual with the intent to prevent suffering- ‘mercy

killing’.”2 Here, euthanasia is distinguished from suicide by

1 Kluge Eike-Henner, Reading in Biomedical Ethics: A Canadian Focus (Ontario: PrenticeHall, 19p3), p. 285.2 M. Heifetz & C. Mangel, The Right to Die (New York: G. P. Putman’s Sons, 1975), p. 99.

3

the necessary participation of a third party, typically either

by a physician or family member.3

For Joseph Fletcher, euthanasia can be described in a

wider sense as “a theory that in certain circumstances, when

owing to disease, senility or the like, a person’s life has

permanently ceased to be either agreeable or useful, the

sufferer should be painlessly killed, either by himself or by

another.”4 Correspondingly, David Roy conceives euthanasia as

“the deliberate, rapid and painless termination of life of a

person afflicted with incurable and progressive disease.”5

Moreover, Euthanasia, for the Euthanasia Society of England,

is “the administration of a drug deliberately and specifically

to accelerate death and suffering.”6 In the same vein,

Henrickson and Martin posit that euthanasia means “inducing

the painless death of a person for reasons assumed to be

merciful.”7

From the foregoing, it can deduced that euthanasia is

carried out at the person’s request but there are times when

3 Gale Encyclopaedia of US History: Euthanasia. http://www. answers.com/topic/euthanasia.4 Joyce H. Rose “Euthanasia” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh: T &T. Clark, 1912), p. 598.5 David Roy et al, Bioethics in Canada (Ontario: Prentice-Hall, 1994), p. 410.6 Robert Twycross, Decisions about Dying and Death: Decision Making in Medicine, the Practice of its Ethics (London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd, 1979), p. 101.7 www.angelfire.com/ai/jefspage

4

they may be too ill and the decision is made by relatives,

medics or in some instances, the courts. Euthanasia can be

carried out by taking actions which include giving a lethal

dose of drugs or injection, by suffocation using a nylon bag

or withdrawal of feeding or drugs.

Another definition of euthanasia is that given by the

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which says

that “euthanasia is understood to be an action or an omission

which of itself or by intention causes death, in order that

all suffering may in this way be eliminated.”8 In this case,

euthanasia’s terms of reference are to be found in the

intention of the will and in the methods used.9 From this

definition, some acts of omission are lethal because they are

adopted precisely as a means to bring about someone’s death.

However, it should, according to J. Onimhawo, be noted that

euthanasia is today not only limited to incurable diseases but

also the mentally handicapped, the defective newborn babies

and other incompetents.10

3.0 Types of Euthanasia

8 Vatican Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, in The Moral Responsibility in Prolonging Life Decision, Donald G. McCarthy and Albert S. Moraezewski, eds, 1980.9 www.euthanasia.com/vatican.html (Declaration on Euthanasia).10 John Onimhawo, “Euthanasia: A Philosophical-Theological Appraisal” (PhD Dissertation presented in University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 1991), p. 9.

5

There are different types of euthanasia, these are:

active euthanasia, Passive euthanasia, voluntary euthanasia,

involuntary euthanasia and non-voluntary euthanasia.

3.1 Active Euthanasia

This has to do with causing the death of someone using a

direct action. It involves the lethal dose of drugs or lethal

injection on a person with the sole aim of terminating the

person’s life. It is viewed as the direct killing of a person

who is suffering from severe pain in order to save him from

this pain- this may happen with or without the person’s

consent.

3.2 Passive Euthanasia

This is the hastening of the death of a person by

altering some form of support and letting nature take its

course. Put simply, “it is an allowance of nature to run its

course.”11 In other words, passive euthanasia is when nothing

is done to prevent the death of a person. “It is the

purposeful removal of the life sustaining or prolonging

treatment with the aim of ending life.” This type of

euthanasia can be carried out by: removing life support

equipment, stopping medical procedures (discontinuing11 Mel Thompson, Ethics (Chicago: contemporary Books, 2003), p. 71.

6

medication), stopping food and water, or removing feeding

tubes, not resuscitating.

In considering both the active and passive euthanasia,

the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association

trying to justify passive euthanasia while condemning active

euthanasia write thus:

The intentional termination of the lifeof one human being by another—mercykilling—is contrary to the policy ofthe American Medical Association. Thecessation of the employment ofextraordinary means to prolong the lifeof the body when there is refutableevidence that biological death isimminent is the decision of the patientand/or his immediate family. The adviceand judgment of the physician should befreely available to the patient and/orhis immediate family.12

Interestingly, many doctors are in concordance with this

view and so, they often justify “letting the patient die” by

distinguishing between this and killing the patient. This, for

them, is because the important difference between active and

passive euthanasia is for the fact that “in passive

euthanasia, the doctor does nothing to bring about the

patient’s death. The patient dies of whatever ills that12 House of Delegates of the American Medical Association (December 4, 1973), quoted by Rachels James, “Active and Passive Euthanasia” in New England Journal of Medicine (January 9, 1975), p. 78.

7

already afflict him. In active euthanasia, however, the doctor

does something to bring about the patient’s death: he kills

him or her.”

Contrary to the views of the American MedicalAssociation, Paul Marx opines that,

The morality of any act (whether one ofcommission or omission) depends on whatis intended as well as on what is done(or not done). It is a mistake toassume that, in the context ofeuthanasia, “active” and “passive”refer to physical activity alone. Forjust as “pulling the plug” is notactive euthanasia unless one’sintention is to kill, so too thephysical passivity of doing nothing atall can be an act of murder. Morallyspeaking, an injured man who idlywatches himself bleed to death withouttrying to stop the bleeding is asguilty of suicide as if he hadinflicted the injury himself. Wherelethal motive is present, physical“passivity” cannot be justified as“letting nature take its course.”13

Taking a cursory look at this, the doctor who allows a patient

to die for humane reasons is in no different moral position as

if he had his patient injected with a lethal dose. The motive

13 Paul Marx, And Now....Euthanasia (Washington: Human Life International, 1985), p. 15.

8

of the action of letting die or injecting with a lethal dose is

for the patient to die.

Again, it has been scientifically proven that a patient,

who ought to die, would even die earlier if there is the

continuation of life-saving drugs than when survival treatment

is discontinued. This will subject the patient to more

suffering and a slow death. If this argument is palpable, then

it would be the case that continuous treatment of the patient

is preferable than just letting the patient die. For this

reason, Rachels posits that “letting a patient die and killing a patient

with a lethal dose have the same moral culpability, and this is

weighed from the motive and final result of the actions.”14

3.3 Voluntary Euthanasia

This is the intentional termination of a patient’s life at

his or her own request. Put differently, voluntary euthanasia

are instances in which a clear competent person makes a

voluntary and enduring request to be helped to die. The

proponents of this view contend that if a person is unlikely to

benefit from the discovery of a cure for illness during the

14See James Rachels, “Active and Passive Euthanasia” in New England Journal of Medicine (January 9, 1975), p. 78.

9

remaining part of his or her life span, the person has an

enduring voluntary and rational wish to die or prior to losing

the competence to do so, had expressed a wish to die, and is

unable without assistance to commit suicide, there should then

be a legal and medical provision to enable him or her to be

allowed to die or assisted to die.15

3.4 Involuntary Euthanasia

This has to do with causing the death of a patient who did

not ask for it. Here, the patient does not express any direct

desire to end his life but is in a position to do so. He or she

does not express the wish to die but the physician stops all

life prolonging treatment.

3.5 Non-voluntary Euthanasia

In the case of non-voluntary euthanasia, a surrogate

decision maker asks a physician for assistance to end the

patient’s life. As a point of fact, in non-voluntary

euthanasia, a person’s life is brought to an end if it is

considered that his or her life is no more worth living.

15 Robert Young, “Voluntary Euthanasia” Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, http//www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/ (18 Oct. 2013).

10

Suckiel argues that when you terminate the life of such a

permanently unconscious person, you are not doing it against

the person’s will but without his will.16

4.0 Arguments for Euthanasia

For the advocates of euthanasia, they claim that it is

ethical and so, it should be morally and legally permitted in

certain cases. Some of the arguments in favour of euthanasia

are:

4.1 The Autonomy Argument or Argument Based on Right

This argument says that human beings have the right to die

when and how they want to. Supporters of this view believe that

every patient has the right to choose when to die. This

argument is hinged on the fact that people like taking

important decisions as they affect their lives. In exercising

autonomy, people take responsibilities for their lives, and

since dying is a part of life, choices about the manner of

dying and the timing of their death are for many people, part

of what is involved in taking responsibility for their lives.17

16 Suckiel, “Death and Benefit in the Permanently Unconscious Patients: A Justification of euthanasia in The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 3, no 1,(March, 1978), pp. 42-43. 17 Robert Young, op.cit.

11

According to The Independent, March 2002, in cases where there

are no dependants who might exert pressure one way or the

other, the right of the individual to choose should be

paramount. So, as long as the patient is lucid, and his or her

intent is clear beyond doubt, there need be no further

questions.18 To buttress this view, the online BBC-Ethics

stresses that people think that each person has the right to

control his or her body and life and so should be able to

determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or

she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings

should be as free as possible without any restraints. Hence,

human beings are independent biological entities, with the

right to take and carry out decisions about themselves,

providing the greater good of society doesn’t prohibit this.

Allied to this is a firm belief that death is the end.19

4.2 The Compassion Argument

Proponents of euthanasia believe that allowing people to

“die with dignity” is kinder than forcing them to continue

their lives with suffering. For them, euthanasia is an

18 Pro euthanasia arguments. (18 Oct. 2013).    http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml 

19 Ibid.

12

effective way of showing compassion to a person in deep pain.

This argument is associated with A.B. Downing who argues that

there is no way we can completely eliminate from human

experience the suffering that is both hard to bear and hard to

behold. In his opinion, when we confront suffering which is

too destructive in its consequences and have no beneficial

results, our first duty is to bring it to an end.

Consequently, Downing subscribed for the legalization of

euthanasia.20 Following this, those who subscribe to this

argument say that it is unreasonable for many persons to live

for many years in varying states of dementia, incapability or

deep disability. Thus, if they request for euthanasia to

escape the situation, out of compassion, we are obliged to

offer it to them.

4.3 The Public Policy Argument 

Adherents of this view believe that euthanasia can be

safely regulated by government legislation. Those in favour of

euthanasia think that there is no reason why euthanasia cannot

be controlled by proper regulation, but they acknowledge that

some problems will remain. For example, it will be difficult

20 A. B. Downing, Euthanasia: The Human Context (London: Peter Owen, 1969), p. 23.

13

to deal with people who want to implement euthanasia for

selfish reasons or pressurise vulnerable patients into dying.

This is little different from the position with any crime. The

law prohibits theft, but that does not stop bad people from

stealing things.

To add to this, some believe that if euthanasia is

accepted as moral and legal, it would avoid its abuse. The

argument here is that, people have two choices to make: either

to opt for euthanasia or not to opt for it. This has its

bearing on the premise that either the legal prohibition of

euthanasia is maintained and euthanasia remains uncontrollable

and underground; or euthanasia is legalized, and is then

openly practiced and controlled.21 The point here is that if

euthanasia is legalized, there would be some procedural

safeguards that would assist in avoiding its abuse.

4.4 Euthanasia Reduces Unnecessary and Unfruitful Expenses.

This argument says that there are so many persons whose

conditions are critical, they are not useful to the society

but their families and the government spend heavily on them.

This money can however be used for making the society better

than for it to be used on these persons. Dr. Sackette, author21 David Roy et al, op.cit., p. 49.

14

of Florida bill, Death with Dignity, is of the opinion that there

is no rationale allowing more than one thousand, five hundred

severely retarded people to continue to survive in the

different health institutions of the state, when the money

should have been more usefully spent on another one hundred

and twenty five persons who need kidney transplant.22

Arguing along this line, Walter Declinger, a onetime

Acting Solicitor General, stated before the U.S. Supreme Court

that the least costly treatment for any illness is lethal

medication. In this way, if euthanasia is legalised for

instance, the savings to government could become a

consideration. Lethal drugs cost only about $35 to $45 making

them far less expensive than providing medical care.

4.5 A Meaningless and Worthless life is not Worth Living.

Subscribers of this view, especially Lisa Cahill,

are of the argument the argument that God created man to

pursue the highest possible human values. A situation whereby

life has lost its meaning and cannot carry out this activity

intended by the creator, then it is not worth living, and so,

22 M. Susan and R. Eassone, Handbook on Euthanasia, Life Quality, (1975), pp. 44-45.

15

such a life can be taken away.23 Correspondingly, a person

whose life is just all about pain and devoid of intellectual

social engagement, pleasure, etcetera, is not worth living.

Such a life has no value. Thus, it is better for it to be

terminated than for it to be sustained.

4.6 Euthanasia is Beneficial to the Patient or His or Her

Relatives

According to John Onimhawo, the pro-euthanasia group

would argue that administering euthanasia on the demented or

senile or a permanently unconscious patient, or the severely

defective newborn babies, is often done for the benefit of the

patient, and the relatives who because of the deplorable

condition of these patients, are in horrifying psychological

agony.24 And as said by Potter, it is very, very cruel to allow

a person who is languishing in pain to live when or she has

demanded for a merciful release.25 For Suckiel, it is very

common to see people feeling very relieved and happy when

their loved patient who was protracted in sickness finally

dies.26

23 Lisa Cahill, A Natural Law Reconstruction of Euthanasia, Lincare Quaterly, vol. 44, no. 1(February, 1977), pp. 47-63. 24 John Onimhawo, op.cit. p. 103.25 D. Potter, Too Soon to Die (England: Evangelical Press, 1982), p. 26.26 Suckiel, op.cit. p.49.

16

5.0 Arguments against Euthanasia

The anti-euthanasia group have plausible and palpable

arguments to offer against the moral and legal justification

of euthanasia. Their arguments in the long run suggest that

euthanasia is unethical.

5.1 It is Against the Will of God

Only God has the right to take away life. People who

kowtow to this view believe that every human being is the

creation of God, and that this imposes certain limits on us.

Our lives are not only our lives for us to do with as we see

fit. To kill oneself, or to get someone else to do it for us,

is to deny God, and to deny God’s rights over our lives and

his right to choose the length of our lives and the way our

lives end. Advocates of this view further see a positive value

in suffering and as such, Pope John Paul II articulates it

thus; “Down through the centuries and generations it has been

seen that in suffering there is concealed a particular power

that draws a person interiorly close to Christ, a special

grace.”27

Along this line of thought, Koch-Preuss explains that

“euthanasia is the destruction of the temple of God and a27 Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, February 11, 1984.

17

violation of the property rights of Jesus Christ.”28 This

argument presents euthanasia as an attempt to meddle with

processes in nature. This argument which places an imperative

that we must not tamper with life, also assumes that

physiological life is sacrosanct.29

5.2 The Sanctity of Life

This argument says that euthanasia is bad because of the

sanctity of human life. It further postulates that all human

beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race,

religion, social status or their potential for achievement.

For this reason, human life is a basic good as opposed to an

instrumental good, a good in itself rather than a means to an

end. To add to this, this argument emphasizes that human life

is sacred because it is a gift from God. Therefore the

deliberate taking of human life should be prohibited except in

self-defence or the legitimate defence of others.30

To buttress this view, Immanuel Kant said that rational

human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not

as a means to something else. The fact that we are human has

28 Anthony Koch and Preuss, Handbook of Moral Theology (St. Louis, 1925), p. 76.29 Joseph Fletcher, Moral and Medicine (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), p. 196.30 Anti-euthanasia arguments. (18 Oct. 2013).  http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml

18

value in itself. Thus, our inherent value does not depend on

anything else - it does not depend on whether we are having a

good life that we enjoy, or whether we are making other

people’s lives better. We exist, so we have value.

5.3 The Slippery Slope Argument

Those who are anti-euthanasia would argue that there is

no ‘right’ to be killed and there are real dangers of

‘slippery slopes’. As a matter of fact, many people would

worry that opening the doors to voluntary euthanasia could

lead to non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia, by giving

doctors the power to decide when a patient’s life is not worth

living.  In the Netherlands in 1990 around 1,000 patients were

killed without their request.31

5.4 Patient’s Best Interests

A serious problem for supporters of euthanasia are the

number of cases in which a patient may ask for euthanasia, or

feel obliged to ask for it, when it is not in their best

interest. Given for instance, if the diagnosis is wrong and

the patient is not terminally ill, if the prognosis (the

doctor’s prediction as to how the disease will progress) is

31 http://www.care.org.uk/advocacy/end-of-life/euthanasia-the-arguments-for-and-against#sthash.EngiJN9c.dpuf

19

wrong and the patient is not going to die soon, if the patient

is getting bad medical care and their suffering could be

relieved by other means, if the doctor is unaware of all the

non-fatal options that could be offered to the patient, this

will make a patient feel that he or she will die in a few

weeks which might not necessarily be the case. As such, the

patient’s request for euthanasia is actually a ‘cry for help’,

implying that life is not worth living now but could be worth

living if various symptoms or fears were managed. Also, if the

patient is depressed and so believes things are much worse

than they are. This makes the patient to be confused and

unable to make sensible judgements. In these cases, one can

interpret the termination of a patient’s life as murder.

5.5 Alternative Treatments are Available, Such as Palliative

Care and Hospices

This argument says that we do not have to kill the

patient to kill the symptoms, that nearly all pain can be

relieved. Palliative care is physical, emotional and spiritual

care for a dying person when cure is not possible. It includes

compassion and support for family and friends. Competent

20

palliative care may well be enough to prevent a person feeling

any need to contemplate euthanasia.32

Doctors and nurses are totally committed to saving lives

and medical ethics forbid them from taking away lives. They

look at a life lost as almost a failure, and in fact, an

insult to their profession. When euthanasia is legalised, this

would no longer be the case. In proportion to Gay-Williams,

“it could have a corrupting influence so that in any case that

is severe doctors and nurses might not try hard enough to save

the patient. They might decide that the patient would simply

be “better off dead” and take the steps necessary to make that

come about.”33 In addendum, the “Hippocratic Oath” taking by

doctors obliges them to protect human life and not to take

away life intentionally.

5.6 Pressure on the vulnerable

This is another of those arguments that says that

euthanasia should not be allowed because it will be abused.

Not only that, it gives doctor power as to deciding when a

patient should die. The fear is that if euthanasia is allowed,

32 Anti-euthanasia arguments. (18 Oct. 2013).      http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml33 J. Gay-Williams, “Basic Issues in Medical Ethics” in Barnet Sylvan, Current Issues and Enduring Questions (Boston: Bedford Books, 1993), p. 419.

21

vulnerable people will be put under pressure to end their

lives. It would be difficult, and possibly impossible, to stop

people using persuasion or coercion to get people to request

euthanasia when they do not really want it.

5.7 The Wedge Argument against Euthanasia

For John Onimhawo, the crux of this argument is that when

we begin to sacrifice or make exceptions in life or death

question for certain classes of people, do we not start a

whole series of events whereby one practically leads to the

other?34 It could be argued by the supporters of euthanasia

that they want the death of only those who are a nuisance to

themselves; but soon it would be broadened to include those

who are a nuisance to others thus, even if you make a law

permitting only a small number of doctors to kill some of

their patients, no sooner would you realise that the new image

of the medical profession is that of licensed killers.35 The

implication of this is such that euthanasia would make life

valueless and too risky.

6.0 Emotivism and the Morality of Euthanasia in James Rachels

34 John Onimhawo, “Euthanasia: A Philosophica-Theological Appraisal”, pp. 147-148. 35 Lancet, Prolongation of Dying, vol. 2, (1962), p. 105.

22

Emotivism as an ethical theory was first proposed by A.

Richards and C. K. Ogden in their work, The Meaning of Meanining,

published in 1873. They described the “good” as something

emotive. It was reformulated by Hagerstrom in 1911 and the

theory was canonized by C. L. Stevenson and A. J. Ayer.36 On

the view of Onimhawo, these ethicists would argue that this

type of ethics is the only one possible since any discussion

of values is a discussion about subjective, emotional

attitudes.

In his work, The Morality of Euthanasia, James Rachels

identifies that emotivism is a meta-ethical theory which holds

that moral judgments are simple expressions of one’s emotions,

feelings or one’s attitude towards an action.37 Following this

view, it means that moral judgments and ethical concepts such

as “good” and “bad” have nothing else but emotive meaning (a

statement is said to have emotive meaning if it is intended to

produce a response in the person who hears it).38 For it only

expresses the feelings or attitudes of people. In this way, if

36 See G. O. Ozumba, A Course Text on Ethics (Lagos: O. O. P Limited, 2001), p. 107.37 James Rachel, “The Morality of Euthanasia” in Right Conduct Theory and Application, eds. Michael Bayles and Ken Henley (New York: Random House, 1989), p. 196. 38 Joseph Omoregbe, Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study (Lagos: Joja Educational Research and Publishers Limited, 1993), p. 261.

23

I say euthanasia is bad, that is the way I feel about it,

there may be a contrary view by someone else. He or she is

free to express his or her own moral feeling about the matter.

It makes it therefore a free enterprise where people are free

to choose any point of morality they want.

On the view of emotivism, moral judgments are not

analogous to scientific statements in that the moral element

in them is not an assertion or a description of anything.39 And

so, emotivism is not concerned with facts to which truth and

falsity can be predicated but deals with attitudes and

feelings. Considered in this way, there can be no moral truths

or moral knowledge. Moral issues can only be reasoned if we

assume a system of norms, but we cannot reason about basic

moral principles.40 Emotivism further claims that moral

judgments and ethical concepts such as good, right, bad and

other moral values terms have emotive meanings; they only

express the feelings or attitudes of the agents.41 Here,

emotivism takes into consideration the different moral

positions people take with respect to their individual and

39 Richard Popkin &Avrom Stroll, Philosophy Made Simple (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 47.40 http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/noncohni.htm41 G. O. Ozumba, A Course Text on Ethics (Lagos: O. O. P Limited, 2001), p. 108.

24

collective emotions, and goes to conclude that everybody has

the right to chose any point of view in morality, and that

contrary moral views do not logically contradict each other.

Rachels uses his doctrine on moral subjectivism to

explain the doctrine of emotivism. The doctrine of moral

subjectivism, as described by Rachels, argues that “moral

language is just about our feelings. Sentences that express a

moral view are really just descriptive -- they describe our

present state of emotion or feeling. If this is true, then

morality is not objective -- it is simply a way of expressing

personal taste.”42 Simply put, it is a doctrine which says that

“people have different opinions, but where morality is

concerned, there are no “facts,” and no one is “right.” People

just feel differently, and that’s the end of it.”43 So, when

for instance A says euthanasia is wrong, A is not stating a

fact about euthanasia. Instead, A is merely saying something

about its feelings toward it.”

Still on this, Rachels contends in what he calls “simple

subjectivism,” that we can sometimes be wrong in our moral42 Rachels, Subjectivism, http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/emotive.pdf (28 Dec. 2013), p. 1.43 Douglas Olena, “Subjectivism in Ethics” review of Chapter Three The Elements of Moral Philosophy James Rachels, http://www.olena.com/edu/intro-to-ethics/elements-3.pdf (28 Dec. 2013), p. 3.

25

judgments, and at the same time he argues that moral

subjectivism might lead to moral disagreements. For this

reason, he rejects subjectivism as true for it has no

objective moral fact in it.

Correspondingly, and as far as Rachels describes it, the

Emotivist school of ethics was created to try to salvage some

of the intuitions about subjectivism, and to do this by trying

to devise a theory which is not exposed to these two arguments

just given. According to Emotivism, moral statements are not

just descriptions of feelings, but rather commands. It says

that “moral language is not a fact-stating language.”44 If this

is the case, then moral statements do not express something

which can be true or false, which in turn makes no sense to

say that the emotivist can never be wrong about morality.

This is for the fact the emotivist might want to argue that

even though morality is not objective, and even though moral

sentences are neither true nor false, there is still something

we are disagreeing about when you say “X is right” and I say

“X is wrong”. What we are disagreeing about, the emotivist

argues, is what we want or what our desires are. One of us

44 Douglas Olena, “Subjectivism in Ethics”, p. 10.

26

wants it to be the case that people do X, and one of X wants

it to be the case that people do not do X.

To substantiate this view, emotivism is used as a means

of influencing people’s behaviour. Emotivism says that moral

statements are not reports of attitudes, but the expression of

those attitudes. It therefore states no facts at all and can

be taken as an emotional outburst or a command. Simple

Subjectivism asserted infallibility to the speaker. Emotivism

asserts nothing about the speaker. In Emotivism the speaker

expresses only desires. Emotivism “could not account for the

place of reason in ethics.”45 As a result, Rachels thinks that

emotivism fails when placed under the spectrum of reason for

If X is a moral statement, then X must be backed up by

reasons. Emotivism cannot explain how a moral statement could

be backed up by reasons. This is for the reason that “moral

judgments require backing by reasons, and in the absence of

such reasons, they are merely arbitrary.” Any theory of moral

judgments should be able to show why the judgments and their

reasons are connected. This is why emotivism cannot make any

moral statements.

45 Douglas Olena, “Subjectivism in Ethics”, p. 12.

27

Rachels reminds us that “not just any fact can count as a

reason in support of any judgment.” The reason must be

relevant, irrespective of its power to convince a hearer.

Moral judgments are fundamentally different from scientific

facts and expressions of our feelings. “Moral truths are

truths of reason; that is, a moral judgment is true if it is

backed by better reasons than the alternatives.”46 “Such truths

are objective in the sense that they are true independently of

what we might want or think.”47 He does not admit to any

universal moral law or natural law that is not understood by

reason and modifiable by better reasons in the future.

According to his view, if we want to understand the nature of

ethics, we must focus on reasons. Reason says what it says,

regardless of our opinions or emotions.

Now concerning the issue of euthanasia, I do not think

Rachel gives us an answer, but he has the best answer reason

can give us. Using the minimum conception of morality,

euthanasia reduces unnecessary suffering, for man’s goal is to

be happy. Does that mean that euthanasia is right because it

reduces suffering? I think the answer is No, because, if we

46 Douglas Olena, “Subjectivism in Ethics”, p. 15.47 James Rachels, The Elements of Moral Philosophy 3rd edition (New York: McGraw Hill College, 1999), p. 41.

28

are to use this model in judging the rightness or wrongness of

euthanasia based on emotivism, then euthanasia may either be

right or wrong since it will be hinged on how the individual,

family members, friends and relatives feel about the issue.

Also, taking a patient’s life to reduce unnecessary suffering

is not a sufficient reason to permit euthanasia. This is due

to the fact that the premise being given to carry out

euthanasia is not a strong one when placed under the spectrum

of reason. This will, of course, do the patient no good than

compounding the issue as some will be in support of taking

away the patient’s life while others will be against it. Thus,

with emotivism, there will be no ethical consensus on the

euthanasia issue.

In any case, the best way to resolve this issue is to

turn to the church’s stance on this issue which is the

argument for the sanctity of life and also the argument which

says we are God’s creation and euthanasia is the destruction

of the temple of God.

7.0 Evaluation and Concluding Reflection

This essay has attempted a discussion of the morality of

euthanasia using emotivism and Rachels as the appeal court for

29

judging its rightness or wrongness. This was done by looking

at the meaning of euthanasia, the forms or types of

euthanasia, the arguments for and against euthanasia,

emotivism and the morality of euthanasia with regard to James

Rachels. Obviously, euthanasia—whether active or passive,

voluntary, involuntary or non-voluntary—leads to the end or

termination of one’s life.

In an attempt to resolve euthanasia using emotivism, the

issue was not judiciously dealt with for the fact that, on the

authority of Rachels, emotivism does not appeal to reason

which is the only criterion which, for him, can be used to

judge the objectivity of an ethical issue either as right or

wrong. The implication of this, however, is that emotivism

says nothing about euthanasia and thus cannot be used to argue

for or against it since it is anchored on the feelings or

emotions of people rather than reason.

To conclude, following the argument of the church and

that given by Pope John Paul II, human life has value, it is

sacred because it is a gift from God. And for this reason,

only God has the right to take away life when He wills. In

addendum, those who cling to the argument that euthanasia

30

reduces suffering, I think that the church still has the best

possible reason for its rejection, for there is value in

suffering which is the reason why Pope John Paul II argues

that in suffering there is concealed a particular power that

draws a person interiorly close to Christ, a special grace.

With this in mind therefore, euthanasia or the

termination of one’s life has no moral worth when judged with

emotivism, and going therefore by the argument which is

anchored on the sanctity of life and that which has its

bearing on life being a gift from God which makes it wrong to

take one’s life, euthanasia is wrong.

Bibliography

Cahill, Lisa. A Natural Law Reconstruction of Euthanasia, LincareQuaterly, vol. 44, no. 1,

February, 1977.

Downing, A. B., Euthanasia: The Human Context. London: Peter Owen,1969.

31

Eike-Henner, Kluge. Reading in Biomedical Ethics: A Canadian Focus.Ontario: Prentice

Hall, 1993.

Fletcher, Joseph. Moral and Medicine. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1954.

Gay-Williams, J., “Basic Issues in Medical Ethics” in BarnetSylvan, Current Issues and

Enduring Questions. Boston: Bedford Books, 1993.

Heifetz, M., & Mangel, C., The Right to Die. New York: G. P.Putman’s Sons, 1975.

Koch , Anthony and Preuss. Handbook of Moral Theology. St. Louis,1925.

Lancet. Prolongation of Dying, vol. 2, 1962.

Marx, Paul. And Now....Euthanasia. Washington: Human LifeInternational, 1985.

Omoregbe, Joseph. Ethics: A Systematic and Historical Study. Lagos: JojaEducational

Research and Publishers Limited, 1993.

Onimhawo, John. “Euthanasia: A Philosophical-TheologicalAppraisal”. PhD Dissertation

presented in University of Ibadan, Nigeria, 1991.

Ozumba, G. O. A Course Text on Ethics. Lagos: O. O. P Limited, 2001.

Popkin, Richard & Stroll, Avrom. Philosophy Made Simple. New York:Doubleday, 1993.

Potter, D., Too Soon to Die. England: Evangelical Press, 1982.

Rachels, James. “Active and Passive Euthanasia” in New EnglandJournal of Medicine

January 9, 1975.

32

Rachel, James. “The Morality of Euthanasia” in Right ConductTheory and Application, eds.

Michael Bayles and Ken Henley. New York: Random House,1989.

Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy 3rd edition. NewYork: McGraw Hill

College, 1999.

Rose, H. Joyce. “Euthanasia” in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.Edinburgh: T & T.

Clark, 1912.

Roy. David et al, Bioethics in Canada. Ontario: Prentice-Hall,1994.

Suckiel, “Death and Benefit in the Permanently UnconsciousPatients: A Justification of

euthanasia in The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, vol. 3, no1, March, 1978.

Susan, M., and Eassone, R., Handbook on Euthanasia, Life Quality,1975.

Twycross, Robert. Decisions about Dying and Death: Decision Making inMedicine, the

Practice of its Ethics. London: Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd,1979.

Thompson, Mel. Ethics. Chicago: contemporary Books, 2003.

Internet Materials

Anti-euthanasia arguments. (18 Oct. 2013).  http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/

against_1.shtml

Gale Encyclopaedia of US History: Euthanasia.http://www. answers.com/topic/euthanasia.

Olena, Douglas. “Subjectivism in Ethics” review of ChapterThree The Elements of Moral

33

Philosophy James Rachels, http://www.olena.com/edu/intro-to-ethics/elements-3.pdf

(28 Dec. 2013).

Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, February 11, 1984.

Pro euthanasia arguments. (18 Oct. 2013).      http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/

infavour_1.shtml.

Rachels, Subjectivism, http://www2.drury.edu/cpanza/emotive.pdf (28 Dec. 2013).

Vatican Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, in The MoralResponsibility in Prolonging Life

Decision, Donald G. McCarthy and Albert S. Moraezewski, eds,1980.,

www.euthanasia.com/vatican.html (Declaration onEuthanasia).

Young, Robert. “Voluntary Euthanasia” Stanford Encyclopaedia ofPhilosophy,

http//www.plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/ (18 Oct. 2013)

www.angelfire.com/ai/jefspage

http://www.care.org.uk/advocacy/end-of-life/euthanasia-the-arguments-for-and-

against#sthash.EngiJN9c.dpuf

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/noncohni.htm

34