Rhetorical analysis
All texts contain ideas that a writer wishes to convey. These are expressed in a unique way depending on the aim, purpose, and audience that a writer wishes to address. The expression of ideas takes various forms. While some can be easily comprehended, others may be complex owing to the content and the way in which an author wishes to convey some particular information. The content also is dependent upon the knowledge of the writer on the subject.
However, most writers seek the audience of the general population since the topics that they do handle touch on issues that affect human society. Among the things that shape what a person writes are his/her beliefs, values, interpretations, and assumptions. The goal of this rhetorical analysis is to identify the beliefs, values, and assumptions concerning euthanasia that are contained in the web blogs.
In medical terms, euthanasia is the act or practice of deliberately ending the life of an individual who could either be suffering from a terminal illness or be in an incurable condition. The ending of life could either be by the suspension of medical treatment or lethal injection. However, much controversy surrounds this act. Should a person be left to die naturally regardless of how much pain he/she feels, or should someone else intervene and make his/her suffering short by killing him/her prematurely?
Crooked Timber, which is a web blog, features a unique voice where users post criticisms of perceived arbitrary and prejudiced editorial choices. Even though there is no clear position among the users concerning the issue of euthanasia, general ethical issues are however dominant.
The web blog provides background information into the entire issue of morality. One of the postings indicates that morality is based on such inherent human traits like instincts or ideology rather than on widely shared social goals. This could as well be a condemnation of the moral code that does not take into consideration the fact that in the shared goals emanates morality. Holding that argument of moral discourses are just, but rationalizations evade the fact that such issues like abortion and euthanasia have dogged the human society for many centuries owing to the inability to structure absolute or ideal analysis of human life.
The question that is the basis of all moral analysis centers on the authority which decides good and bad, life and death; in the quest to ponder this issue, the postings in the Crooked Timber resort to a dialectical method.
The blog provides a general intellectual analysis on various issues in the sense that quite a number of moral issues can be handled by going through a couple of related ethical postings. One of the blogger’s approaches to ethical reflections is that an individual ought to ask himself/herself the principles that he/she should accept rather than try and convince another party to believe what he/she thinks that he/she knows.
With respect to euthanasia, it would be of no use for one to convince another of the evils of its practice with regard to taking away someone’s life. Supporting the act or not supporting it entirely depends on the ethical considerations of an individual; hence should not be imposed on another person. Ethical reflection and possible justifications on issues like euthanasia can only be constructively addressed to those people who share certain values or premises.
The blog provides a good lead for people who seek to gain a deeper insight into the moral issues that are central to any individual human life. For instance, if at all it is ethical to pull out a life-supporting machine from an individual who is highly dependent upon it. These are some of the questions that we cannot attach an absolute explanation to, even though they are moral issues that require in-depth analysis. A doctor may deliberately pull out a life-supporting machine from a patient, so he may be relieved of the task of having to attend to him/her knowing that sooner or later he/she will die.
Slashdot, which is also a web blog, provides interesting insights into the issue of euthanasia. According to a blog user, there may be no good reasons to oppose euthanasia as there may be no good reasons to support it, but still, it will always remain an issue of debate. We can as well say that the element of relativity seems to be at the forefront of much of the debate on moral issues since not all human societies are governed by the same ethical rules.
However, informal acceptance of euthanasia has proved problematic in the past. In Germany, the Nazis legalized euthanasia which was approved by doctors for selected people like the severely mentally retarded on the grounds that their lives were not worth living. However, life’s worth is not to be determined by other human subjects, for this compromises its essence.
The moral issue cannot be ignored as much as they do not provide clear concepts. Even though the legalization of euthanasia could be driven by genuine concerns, the definition of its scope is never clear. The Nazis broadened the category of the undesirables to include some ethnic communities, which perverted euthanasia to extremely evil purposes. This creates suspicion that its acceptance, legalization, and practice would lead to public programs for problematic people in society, especially the very old and the poor. Such issues like racism could be propelled to another angle since some people may use euthanasia as a basis for wiping some ethnic communities.
However, there are situations that may call for euthanasia. While it is the duty of doctors to save an individual’s life, that responsibility does not transcend the prolonging of life through artificial means in every circumstance.
Work Cited
Mandle John, (2004) Posner, Rawls and Reflective Equilibrium. Web.