The subject of euthanasia is an extremely delicate topic of discussion which is surrounded by numerous ethical debates. Generally speaking, euthanasia as a term is used to describe deliberate action to painlessly terminate a person’s life to put an end to their pain. On the one hand, advocates of euthanasia speak about one’s right to make their own decision in regard to life and death and call the act ‘mercy killing’ due to it relieving people of suffering. On the other hand, euthanasia opponents argue about the sanctity of life and equal the act to murder. However, from the point of view of a few ethical theories – namely, teleology, deontology, and Levina’s “face of the other” – euthanasia is deeply unethical and contradicts all possible moral laws.
Teleology is the study of things in terms of the purposes they serve, and it was heavily relied on by Aristotle. He believed that there was a reason for everything – including human life: he saw it as organized and directed towards the final end. As for what Aristotle considered the final end, it was “complete good” – happiness, the ultimate goal of all our activities that renders a human life “in need of nothing” (Aristotle, 2017, p. 247). Evidently, all of our activities are aimed at achieving a goal, although most of them are means to achieving other goals. Happiness is a goal in and of itself – the ultimate goal; as such, it is the highest good. The problem is that different people tend to disagree with what makes life happy or good – the goal of ethics is to answer this question. However, it is unlikely for that answer to be death – which is the outcome of euthanasia; therefore, one can conclude that the practice of euthanasia would be deemed unethical from Aristotle’s perspective.
The theory of deontology is the theory according to which people have a moral obligation to act in concordance with a particular set of rules and principles. Immanuel Kant was this theory’s prominent advocate, and he formulated its most substantial form. As opposed to deontological theory’s religious interpretations, Kant’s theory’s rules are derived from the human mind. As per Kant, “some actions are inherently wrong,” even if they lead to a remarkable outcome (Kant, 2019, p. 30). This is the way actions are evaluated in deontology – regardless of the end result. In regard to euthanasia, the end result can be considered good – a person is able to escape suffering. However, from a moral viewpoint, ending someone else’s life would most likely be deemed inherently wrong. Therefore, the act of euthanasia is unethical from the perspective of Kant’s deontological theory as well.
“Face of the other” is the theory of Emmanuel Lévinas – a French philosopher of the 20th century – that proposes that people are responsible for one another in face-to-face encounters. He stated that his ethical relation to loving others comes from his inability to survive alone and find meaning “within its own being-in-the-world, within the ontology of sameness” (My Jewish Learning, n.d.). According to Lévinas, another person’s right to exist takes precedence over one’s own right, and it is embodied in an ethical decree: one shall not kill, and one shall not endanger the life of another. Consequently, from this perspective, the act of euthanasia would be regarded as violence to someone else’s life.
As a result, euthanasia is likely to be considered unethical from the point of view of any of these theories. From a teleological viewpoint, things that lead to one’s life being happy or good cannot be pursued – therefore, euthanasia, with its end result being death, could hardly be viewed as something positive. Moreover, in accordance with Kant’s deontological theory, there are acts that are always wrong, regardless of the outcome, which fits euthanasia – essentially, a killing that frees one of pain. Additionally, Lévinas speaks about putting someone’s life higher than his own due to the existence being meaningful only with others in it – euthanasia, from his perspective, would be deemed an infringement on another’s life.