Suicide and Euthanasia - Germain Grisez

Distinction Between Types of Goods

• Instrumental Goods: Valued as a means to achieve something further.
  • Examples:
  • Money
  • Hammer
  • Thermometer
• Intrinsic Goods: Valued for their own sake.
  • Examples:
  • Friendship
  • Love
  • Happiness
• Key Point: Grisez asserts that human life is an intrinsic good.

Moral Principles Regarding Human Goods

• Grisez's Position:
  • One must never act against an intrinsic human good.
  • It is morally wrong to sacrifice an intrinsic good for the sake of anticipated greater good.
  • Euthanasia: Considered wrong because it directly attacks the intrinsic good of life.

Understanding Suicide

• Suicide Distinction: Different from actions leading to death as side effects.
  • Examples of Unintentional Death:
  • Martyr: Chooses faith over life; doesn’t intend to die.
  • Hero: Risks life to save another; intention is not self-destruction.
  • Cancer Patient: Chooses comfort over further aggressive treatment; not intending to end life.
• Illicit Example of Suicide:
  • War protestor committing self-immolation for political reasons is guilty of a moral offense, as he intentionally harms himself for a perceived greater good.

Recklessness and Immorality

• Not intending death does not absolve responsibility for reckless actions.
  • Example: Daredevil engaging in high-risk activities.

Implications of Respecting Human Goods

• For Oneself: Strive to promote one’s good.
• For Others: Aim to contribute to others' flourishing.
• For God: Loving God involves upholding every intrinsic human good.

Reasons Why Suicide is Wrong

• It limits one's ability to promote human goods.
• It causes harm to the community.
• It goes against the tenet of loving God.

Understanding Moral Responsibility in Suicide

• Not all individuals who commit suicide act with full moral awareness.
• Various factors affecting moral judgment must be considered.
• A call for compassion instead of condemnation is needed.

Addressing Objections to Anti-Suicide Position

• Objection: Choosing death may have more value than suffering.

  • Response: Upholding intrinsic human life is of higher moral value than choosing suicide.

• Objection: Killing is only prima facie wrong; there are scenarios where it could be justifiable.

  • Response: This perspective reflects consequentialism, which fails to maintain the crucial distinction between killing oneself and allowing death to occur naturally.

• Objection: No significant difference between actively causing death and passively allowing one to die.

  • Response: A person adopting suicidal intentions actively embraces the character of a killer, undermining the intrinsic value of life.

• Objection: Comparison to treatment of animals; euthanizing horses should apply to humans too.

  • Response: Human life holds intrinsic value, while animal life is usually considered instrumentally valuable.

• Objection: Physicians already act outside the law; we should legalize euthanasia to align with their practices.

  • Response: Adjusting laws based on existing malpractice sets a dangerous precedent.

• Objection: Physicians are professionals and should respect patient choices regarding euthanasia.

  • Response: No elite group should be exempt from law, especially concerning serious matters like euthanasia.

• Objection: No public interest justifies legal interference in euthanasia.

  • Response: If suicide infringes on the good of life, then substantial public interest exists to uphold laws against euthanasia.

• Objection: Legalized euthanasia could help those suffering.

  • Response: Euthanasia's legalization may lead to a mindset that devalues life, risk of non-voluntary euthanasia, and setting the stage for further unethical practices, similar to historical patterns seen in legalized abortion.