A sneak-peak into some of the essay services we offer
Best trained professionals
At Legit writing we have a diverse team of professionals from scattered across various cultures,
professions, and geographies. In particular, we have:
-
- Writers from Native Speakers of English. These category have special access to orders
specifically marked for Native Speaker of English;
- Writers from Native Speakers of English. These category have special access to orders
-
- Writers with English as a Second Language with extensive knowledge of Humanities, Business
Studies, Applied, and Social Sciences;
- Writers with English as a Second Language with extensive knowledge of Humanities, Business
-
- Writers with deep knowledge and familiarity in various disciplines. This category of writers
only work on their areas of expertise on a permanent basis. The subjects for this category of
writers include: Accounting, Architecture, Building and Planning, Biology (and other Life
Sciences), Chemistry, Engineering, Civil Engineering, Computer Science, IT and Web design,
Finance, Mathematics, Physics, and Statistics. Besides, we have an experienced editorial team to
catch errors, arrest typos, and grammatical errors before your paper is sent to you.
- Writers with deep knowledge and familiarity in various disciplines. This category of writers
Title Comes Here
Example of an Argumentative essay
Euthanasia and Utilitarianism
Euthanasia has created legal and ethical problems in contemporary culture. Euthanasia refers to the deliberate act of terminating a person’s life to relieve severe suffering (Keown, 2018). Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that advocates behaviors that enhance happiness or pleasure while opposing those that bring dissatisfaction or pain (Kahane et al., 2018). Proponents of utilitarianism think that individuals should die with dignity and without suffering. At the same time, opponents of euthanasia believe that life is a gift from God and that God alone should decide when life should be ended. However, assisted suicide endangers the lives of our society’s weak and vulnerable members.
Euthanasia is intended to be carried out for the benefit of the individual murdered. Dintcho (2020) argues that the individual seeking euthanasia is not in the most excellent mental state to choose what is best for them. Someone may claim that they would prefer to die than to remain alive in a particular condition. And other individuals may believe that the person in front of them made a simple error. If they act in the best interests of this individual, they may consider euthanasia.
According to its proponents, it may be used to avoid the needless prolongation of pain suffered by many terminally ill individuals and their families. Moreover, by implementing it, physical pain and resources allocated would be reduced and the sometimes overwhelming emotional suffering experienced by the patient and, indirectly, by friends and family in attendance (Kahane et al., 2018). All of this might be avoided if euthanasia was permitted.
Utilitarianism tends to produce a black-and-white morality. There are no gray areas in utilitarian ethics—either something is wrong, or it is correct. For example, assume I am diagnosed with a fatal illness A and request that I be murdered to alleviate my suffering. Euthanasia ideas are motivated by the dread of dependence and isolation from family and community, not physical suffering (Keown, 2018). Individuals have sought euthanasia to combat sadness brought on by isolation and loneliness. If you then comply and a subsequent autopsy reveals that I was misdiagnosed. Who will be held responsible for the tragedy (utility)? Utilitarianism is incapable of predicting with confidence whether the repercussions of our acts will be beneficial or detrimental—the effects of our actions occur in the future.
Additionally, utilitarianism struggles to account for ideals such as justice and individual rights. For instance, suppose a hospital has four patients whose lives depend on organ transplantation: a heart, lungs, kidney, and liver. If a healthy individual walks into a hospital, his organs may be taken to save four lives at the cost of his own. Perhaps, would result in the most significant benefit to the largest number. However, few would consider this an acceptable, much alone ethical, course of conduct.
Even if we agree to the utilitarian argument, we have to deal with reasons that do not correctly control euthanasia.
References
Dintcho, A. D. (2020). Should Active Euthanasia Be Morally and Legally Permissible? Sound Decisions: An Undergraduate Bioethics Journal, 5(1), 1.
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125(2), 131.
Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press.