Sanctity vs quality of life

Debates about abortion and euthanasia often turn on two rival principles:

• Sanctity of life — human life is intrinsically valuable, God-given and made in the image of God; it should not be deliberately ended. This underpins natural law.
• Quality of life — what matters is the experienced quality of a life (its capacities, wellbeing, absence of suffering); a life of great suffering may not be worth prolonging.

A-level asks you to apply ethical theories (natural law, situation ethics, utilitarianism, Kant) to these issues.

Personhood and Peter Singer

Much depends on who counts as a person with full moral status.

• Peter Singer (a preference utilitarian) argues moral status tracks personhood — capacities such as rationality, self-awareness and the ability to have preferences about the future — rather than mere membership of the species Homo sapiens ("speciesism").
• He controversially concludes the traditional sanctity-of-life doctrine is outdated.

Critics reply that grounding rights in current capacities is dangerous — it can exclude infants, the severely disabled and the unconscious.

Whose personhood argument?

Abortion: the debate

Key issues:

• When does personhood/life begin? — conception, viability, or birth?
• Rights in conflict: the foetus's potential right to life vs the woman's autonomy and wellbeing.
• Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist: even if the foetus has a right to life, that need not oblige the woman to sustain it with her body — a bodily-autonomy defence of abortion.
• Double effect: natural law may permit an operation (e.g. for an ectopic pregnancy) that foreseeably but unintentionally ends the foetus's life.

Applying the theories

• Natural law: generally opposes abortion (preservation of life), but double effect allows life-saving treatment.
• Situation ethics: asks what agape requires in this situation — could permit abortion if most loving.
• Utilitarianism: weighs the consequences and preferences of all affected.
• Kant: the duty not to use a person merely as a means, and the universalisability of the maxim, must be considered.

Whose violinist?

Euthanasia: the distinctions

Euthanasia (a "good death") comes in types:

• Voluntary (the person requests it), non-voluntary (they cannot consent), involuntary (against their will).
• Active (an act causes death) vs passive (withholding/withdrawing treatment).

James Rachels ("Active and Passive Euthanasia") argues the active/passive distinction is morally untenable: if the outcome and intention are the same, letting die can be as bad as — or worse than — killing.

Applying the theories

• Sanctity of life / natural law: opposes deliberately ending life; may accept withdrawing disproportionate treatment and giving pain relief (double effect).
• Autonomy: supports a person's right to choose (a key argument for voluntary euthanasia).
• Utilitarianism: weighs suffering relieved against risks; worries about a slippery slope to non-voluntary euthanasia.
• Situation ethics: Fletcher himself favoured allowing euthanasia where agape demands mercy.

Whose critique?

Weighing it up

• Is life valuable intrinsically (sanctity) or for its quality? Can the two be combined?
• Does autonomy outweigh sanctity, and where are its limits?
• Are slippery-slope fears about euthanasia evidence-based or speculative?
• Which theory gives the most defensible, consistent verdict — and does any theory handle both issues well?

Sort each claim

Tap a claim, then drop it under the principle it supports.

Match the thinker or idea

Tap a description, then the thinker or concept it belongs to.

The big ideas to hold together

You can now apply the four theories to abortion and euthanasia and weigh sanctity against quality of life. Press Finish to see your score.