Posted: February 12th, 2015

Philisophy, Capital Punishment, Euthanisia

Paper, Order, or Assignment Requirements

 

 

READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY AND MORE THAN ONCE!

 

Complete any TWENTY (NO MORE!!!!!) of the following, indicating whether the statements are true or false and explaining your answers IN YOUR OWN WORDS.   If you also include a quote or a closely paraphrased passage, make sure that you cite it.

 

1. Callahan asserts that there is nomoral distinction between “killing” and “allowing to die” and that,therefore, all acts of “passive euthanasia” are as morally reprehensible as acts of “active euthanasia” (PAS and VAE).

 

2. The videos “The Suicide Tourist” and “The Coumbias’ Story” tell the stories of three people who went to Switzerland seeking assisted suicide and whoallwere helped to die with the aid of the group Dignitas and a doctor working with the group.

   3.  A pacifist (that is, a supporter of “absolute nonviolence”), Nathanson argues that since killing for any reason is morally wrong, capital punishment should be abolished.

 

4. Potts is against legalizing any kind of active euthanasia because he believes that doing so might very well lead to much more overall harm than benefit.

 

5. Primoratz would most likely have agreed with Texas Governor Perry’s decision to grant a stay of execution for Willingham so that new evidence in his case could have been more closely examined.

 

6. Had the voters of Massachusetts passed the Death with Dignity Actin 2012, Massachusetts would have become the first state in the United States where a state referendum/initiative allowing voluntary active euthanasia (VAE) would have been approved by the voters.

 

7. The centralclaim of the “ Best Bet” argument is that even though it cannot be proven that capital punishment deters others from murdering innocent victims, it at least guarantees that the executed murderer will never kill anyone again.
8. Brock and Callahan would agree with Willard Gaylin and his colleagues in their claim that the “moral center” of medicine allows physicians to perform (active) euthanasia.

 

9. In its 1976 decision,Gregg v. Georgia, a majority of the members of the United States Supreme Court said that capital punishment for the crimes of murder and rape were constitutional and ordered all states to include capital punishment in their judicial processes. 

 

1. Primoratz argues that social utility arguments provide the primary justification for the use of capital punishment.
2. Nathanson would say that “terrorists” who murder civilians deserveto be executed.
3. In a 2005 decision, Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute anyone who murdered someone when s/he (the murderer) was younger than fourteen years of age.

 

3. Both Nathanson and Reiman agree thatnot executing murderers hopefully will teach “a lesson about the wrongfulness of murder” and discourage people from resorting “to violence to settle conflicts.”

 

4. The video “The Suicide Plan” focuses on an organization started by Dr. Jack Kevorkian and Dr. Timothy Quill whose major purpose is to disseminate information about and create support for legislation allowing physician assisted suicide (PAS).

 

5. Potts and Emanuel agree that, if active euthanasia is legalized, many requests for PAS or VAE might notreallybe voluntary, but instead be the result of “pressure on the patient or the patient’s fear of becoming a burden.”

 

6. Although he, in theory, supports capital punishment, Primoratz thinks that it should be forbidden at this point in time in the United States because it is simply “a means of social discrimination and [the] perpetuation of social injustice” and because there is a very real risk that innocent people might be executed.

 

7. Agreeing with Emanuel about the dangers of legalizing any kind of active euthanasia (PASor VAE), Watts and Howell would oppose any laws that would allow aid in dying as it has been practiced by either Jack Kevorkian or Timothy Quill.

 

8. In Holland, Switzerland, Washington, and Oregon one of the major requirements for PAS or VAE is that the person requesting such aid in dying be in uncontrollablephysical pain.

 

9. Their focus on and interpretations of the concepts of the value of human life, of rights, and of what peopledeservelead both Nathanson and Primoratz to oppose capital punishment.

 

1. “Passive” euthanasia (withholding, or withdrawing treatment) if it will likely result in the death of the patient is not allowed (legally) anywhere in the United States for incompetent patients.
2. Emanuel opposesboththe legalization of and all acts of euthanasia, including those that involve “passive” euthanasia and those that involve “indirect” euthanasia. 

 

2. Requests for PAS and VAE usually come from people who are in terriblephysical painthat cannot be controlled.

 

3. People who do not, in principle, oppose laws allowing “active” physician aid in dying wouldin all probability agree that the Dutch approach would be an excellent one for the United States to adopt.

 

4. In developing his arguments for torture and for capital punishment based on the “anecdotal evidence” of their deterrent effect, Pojman claims thatbothare “ humane” punishments because the majority of people in society consider them to be morally acceptable.

 

5. Reiman opposes capital punishment because he thinks that even murderers can be rehabilitated and become productive members of society.
6. Nathanson claims that when someone commits a crime (including murder), it should not result in his or her loss ofany of the rights that law abiding people have.

 

7. Brock argues that the very important values of self-determination and well-being would morally prohibit any type of active euthanasia because a person’s choice of active euthanasia inherently contradicts both of these values.  (Death takes away any chance to make choices and to have any being at all.)

 

8. Retributionist retentionists like Primoratz support the claim thatall killers should be executed because they deserve to die.