On the issue of Active and Passive Euthanasia, Aristotle would argue that they are both also wrongdoings. For instance, he believes that “murder is always wrong” so if one actively puts someone to death, he or she is committing murder. In the case of passive euthanasia, which is allowing to die, the person, no matter how unpleasant of a state they might be in, still has a “Vegetable” (Aristotle P. 25) soul because they are taking in nutrients. Souls like “Sensate” and “rational” may vary on the patient but to Aristotle, the person still has a soul because he or she is “living.” (Aristotle P 24-25) Aristotle would possibly see a suffering patient as a “defect in courage” (handout) because such a person would be a coward; a not virtuous individual that has “[habituated]” (Aristotle P 25) his thoughts and actions to a non-proper moral choice, the result of reasoning and a rational desire. In this case of passive euthanasia, there is no courage involved, just a coward that gives up his happiness and hope too easily.
When one commits murder, as we have said, Aristotle believes it is “always wrong” (Aristotle P.30) so, to Aristotle, Capital Punishment should be not aloud because someone is getting murdered when you commit Capital Punishment. Aristotle believes that through “ethos” meaning “habit” (Aristotle P 25) one that may have murdered through having a “defect in righteous by being malevolent ” (Aristotle handout) can become morally “Virtuous” (Aristotle P.25) and it is not too late for anyone “to change the direction” (Aristotle P. 25) of themselves. Therefore, we must allow one to try to become closer to the bull’s-eye of moral virtue.
The definition of a “mean” is a “thing” and an “end” is a “person”(Kant P36) or a “rational being” (Kant P 37). I believe that Kant would be pro abortion because the fetus is never a “rational being” (Kant P 37) because it is not “a completely independent being without need” (Kant P 37). I also believe that Kant would be pro abortion because since the fetus is merely a “thing” it does not fit to be a part of any of the Formulas.
When it comes to Euthanasia, either Active or Passive I believe that Kant would be against it. He makes a point that every rational being obtains a “dignity” something that is “beyond price” (Kant P38). What he means is that this dignity cannot be replaced because it is so important to our lives. If someone were to end our dignity or we end our dignity ourselves it would be immoral and not right because we would then be treating our dignity as a “price” which “can replace something” and that price would be getting put out of misery. Euthanasia is said to be a form of suicide, which is something that Kant believes no man should act upon because Suicide could never be a “universal law of nature;” it would be a “law to destroy life” and that kind of law is “inconsistent with