Self-Reflective Essay: Analyzing Morality and Ethical Theories

This self-reflective essay delves into the complexities of morality and ethical theories, specifically examining the contrasting perspectives of deontology and teleology through the case of Robert Latimer. The essay analyzes the moral implications of Latimer's actions, considering the deontological view, which emphasizes moral absolutes and the sanctity of life, and the teleological view, which focuses on the outcomes of actions, particularly in terms of reducing suffering. The essay explores moral absolutism, the divine command theory, and ethical utilitarianism to evaluate the morality of Latimer's actions. It argues for the permissibility of euthanasia in cases of severe suffering, emphasizing the importance of quality of life and compassion. The essay also addresses potential objections to legalizing euthanasia, such as concerns about negligence and the violation of the right to life, and offers counterarguments based on the need for compassion and the importance of considering the patient's quality of life. Overall, the essay concludes by advocating for a teleological approach that prioritizes reducing suffering and promoting human well-being, while acknowledging the complexities and ethical considerations surrounding euthanasia.

Running head: SELF-REFLECTIVE
Self-Reflective
Student Name
Institution Name

SELF-REFLECTIVE 2
Self-Reflective
This case presents the contrasting nature of morality. Based on the deontological
ethical theories, Robert Latimer’s decision to kill her daughter was morally wrong. Every
individual has a moral responsibility to protect life. Precisely, the deontological ethical
theories take a normative ethical position that judges the morality of an act based on
established rules. In this respect, what Latimer did was morally wrong as it violated the
existing laws on murder. As illustrated by moral absolutism theory and the divine command
theory, actions such as killing another person are considered immoral regardless of the
situations inciting them. Consequently, judging from the moral absolutism theory and the
divine command perspectives, Latimer’s action was immoral.
However, based on the teleological interpretations, Latimer’s actions were morally
right as they saved Tracy from the pain that she was undergoing. Furthermore, Tracy’s
condition was incurable and was causing her family severe psychological and economic
distress. From this perspective, Latimer’s actions are morally correct since he saved her
daughter from severe pain and suffering. Teleological theories opine that the morality of an
act is defined by its outcomes. Specifically, Latimer’s actions are supported by ethical
utilitarianism. Killing Tracy promoted the greatest happiness to the majority because her
family, society, and herself were saved from the severe pain and suffering.
Although it is considered morally wrong to end the life of another person from the
deontological view, mercy killing should be permitted in some cases. When an individual is
undergoing intense suffering and pain from an incurable disease, euthanasia should be seen
from the teleological perspective as saving the individual from suffering and pain. However,
before carrying out euthanasia, the patient must be consulted. If they agree, a specialist
should be contracted to execute euthanasia. I choose the teleological position since it

SELF-REFLECTIVE 3
promotes development and satisfaction of human life on earth. In fact, human life is not
defined by its existence but by its quality. In this respect, human actions should be judged by
their outcomes not set absolutes.
However, some people may object the legalization of euthanasia. The critics of mercy
killing would argue that its legalization will increase negligence in the healthcare sector.
Moreover, they will argue from the deontologists' viewpoint that it violates the moral
obligation of humans to protect life. In this view, physicians would intentionally kill patients
out of negligence and claim that they were critically ill.
However, these claims are based on partial opinions and fear of the unknown. The law
legalizing mercy killing will explicitly explain how the act should be conducted and hold the
physicians liable for any misconduct. On the argument about the right to life, it is vital to
consider the quality of life a person is living. There is no gain in living a miserable life full of
pain and suffering. In this respect, it is vital to consider mercy killing as an act of
compassion, not murder.