Compose a 2000 words assignment on analysis of articles about euthanasia. Needs to be plagiarism free! Craig opts to tackles the question of whether it is ethical to terminate an innocent life from the perspective of natural laws. In this regard, he revives the natural law approach to moral reasoning from where he proceeds to defend the proposition to the effects that it is a serious moral wrong to end the life of an innocent person’s life (including your own) on grounds of relieving pain or some other seeming convincing reasons. To him, that is murder by another name. In this book, Craig offers a detailed analysis of why deliberately terminating an innocent person’s life in the name of relieving such a person’s pain is murder or assisted suicide by another name. His use of natural law to reach this conclusion is more convincing than most of anti-euthanasia campaigners narratives on the same. In this regard, he contributes significantly to this debate, which in the spirit of open debate is very important.
In this book, Craig attempts on several occasions to differentiate “natural laws” from the “law of nature” in order to convince the reader that sound ethical judgment is always grounded on objectivity but not on emotions and passion, as has been the case in the past (Paterson 5).
In this publication, Zakyah presents a simple way of looking at the concept of “euthanasia” without necessarily getting caught in the maze of religion, stereotypes, emotions and utter misuse of this concept that has been generated by the conflicting interests that have been championing this debate. According to Zakyah, the best a person can do to look at objectivity while interrogating the pros and cons of euthanasia in an effort to decide its merit is to look at it from the medical and religious perspective that it has been subjected to in over the years. In demystifying this concept Zakyah offers a very simplistic approach that he proceeds to explore the cynicism that has been generated in this debate, thereby exposing the passion and emotion that continues to obstruct the creation of an environment conducive for an objective debate.