“Situation Ethics is more permissive of euthanasia than Natural
Law." Discuss.
Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain
and suffering. Its potential legalisation around the world poses a controversial
ethical debate. Religious ethical theories are not unified in their positions on
euthanasia, as seen in the contrast between Fletcher’s Situation Ethics and
Aquinas’ Natural Law. Situation Ethics is a relativist ethical theory which cen-
tres upon agape, lending itself to appear more permissive and understanding
of euthanasia. Natural Law, however, is rooted in religious doctrine and promul-
gates Aquinas’ vitalist beliefs, suggesting a total condemnation of all forms of
euthanasia.
There is a highly convincing argument which highlights that Situation Ethics is
not necessarily more permissive of euthanasia than Natural Law. The agapeic
foundation of Situation Ethics provokes restrictive issues when applied to eu-
thanasia, as the harmful consequences that have resulted from the loosening
of euthanasia laws, and the potential impacts of further legalisation, hold
enough weight to definitively establish that euthanising a person cannot be the
most loving action. This is strongly evidenced during the Nazi Regime, in which
Hitler’s ‘Aktion T 4’ saw the “mercy killing” of tens of thousands of people, pre-
dominantly the sick and disabled. Bishop Clemens August stated that it means
“the way is open… for the murder of all of us, when we become old and infirm
and therefore unproductive.” This lends weight to the argument that Situation
ethics cannot permit euthanasia, as to do so would be to claim that these de-
structive consequences were loving. Furthermore, the idea that Situation Ethics
is not permissive of euthanasia is strengthened by the catalyst for the theory
being Jesus’ words from the Gospel of Mark, ““you shall love the Lord your God
with all your strength… “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no
other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:28-34), which demonstrate
that Jesus sets the example for agapeic love that Fletcher believes we should
follow. In the same book, when Jesus is being crucified, “they offered him wine
mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it,” even though it would ease his pain.
This strongly suggests that Jesus believed suffering to be an essential and in-
evitable part of life, thereby significantly supporting that a Situation Ethicist
should follow Jesus’ example and reject methods of euthanasia. This argument
is restricted by Jesus’ ultimate belief that one should “love your neighbour”,
which would suggest that it is morally right to allow someone the right to eu-
thanasia if this is what is desired, for to deny this would be to act in an unlov-
ing and impersonal way. Nevertheless, this criticism fails to dismantle the argu-
ment as a whole, as one must then consider the family members and the dis-
abled people threatened by euthanasia, who are also neighbours deserving of
actions based on agape.
However, a strong yet flawed argument for Natural Law being far more intoler-
ant of euthanasia is based in the sanctity of life. This is the view that life is sa-
cred because humans are created ‘imago dei’, “in the image and likeness of
God” (Genesis 1:27), highlighting that Natural Law is intrinsically within all hu-
mans and that life is a gift from God. The professor John Wyatt strengthens this
view by arguing that ‘imago dei’ means that “A man’s life is not his own… Hu-
man life has dignity because they were created by God, this means life,
Law." Discuss.
Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain
and suffering. Its potential legalisation around the world poses a controversial
ethical debate. Religious ethical theories are not unified in their positions on
euthanasia, as seen in the contrast between Fletcher’s Situation Ethics and
Aquinas’ Natural Law. Situation Ethics is a relativist ethical theory which cen-
tres upon agape, lending itself to appear more permissive and understanding
of euthanasia. Natural Law, however, is rooted in religious doctrine and promul-
gates Aquinas’ vitalist beliefs, suggesting a total condemnation of all forms of
euthanasia.
There is a highly convincing argument which highlights that Situation Ethics is
not necessarily more permissive of euthanasia than Natural Law. The agapeic
foundation of Situation Ethics provokes restrictive issues when applied to eu-
thanasia, as the harmful consequences that have resulted from the loosening
of euthanasia laws, and the potential impacts of further legalisation, hold
enough weight to definitively establish that euthanising a person cannot be the
most loving action. This is strongly evidenced during the Nazi Regime, in which
Hitler’s ‘Aktion T 4’ saw the “mercy killing” of tens of thousands of people, pre-
dominantly the sick and disabled. Bishop Clemens August stated that it means
“the way is open… for the murder of all of us, when we become old and infirm
and therefore unproductive.” This lends weight to the argument that Situation
ethics cannot permit euthanasia, as to do so would be to claim that these de-
structive consequences were loving. Furthermore, the idea that Situation Ethics
is not permissive of euthanasia is strengthened by the catalyst for the theory
being Jesus’ words from the Gospel of Mark, ““you shall love the Lord your God
with all your strength… “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” There is no
other commandment greater than these” (Mark 12:28-34), which demonstrate
that Jesus sets the example for agapeic love that Fletcher believes we should
follow. In the same book, when Jesus is being crucified, “they offered him wine
mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it,” even though it would ease his pain.
This strongly suggests that Jesus believed suffering to be an essential and in-
evitable part of life, thereby significantly supporting that a Situation Ethicist
should follow Jesus’ example and reject methods of euthanasia. This argument
is restricted by Jesus’ ultimate belief that one should “love your neighbour”,
which would suggest that it is morally right to allow someone the right to eu-
thanasia if this is what is desired, for to deny this would be to act in an unlov-
ing and impersonal way. Nevertheless, this criticism fails to dismantle the argu-
ment as a whole, as one must then consider the family members and the dis-
abled people threatened by euthanasia, who are also neighbours deserving of
actions based on agape.
However, a strong yet flawed argument for Natural Law being far more intoler-
ant of euthanasia is based in the sanctity of life. This is the view that life is sa-
cred because humans are created ‘imago dei’, “in the image and likeness of
God” (Genesis 1:27), highlighting that Natural Law is intrinsically within all hu-
mans and that life is a gift from God. The professor John Wyatt strengthens this
view by arguing that ‘imago dei’ means that “A man’s life is not his own… Hu-
man life has dignity because they were created by God, this means life,
