Explain how a follower of utilitarianism would respond to issue raised by euthanasia.

Classical Utilitarianism is teleological, and it says that the outcome of an action determines whether the action is right or wrong. The basic principle of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest good for the greatest number. When regarding euthanasia, the question of what counts as a good consequence is questioned. John Stuart Mill says that good consequences are simply happiness, happiness is pleasure and freedom from pain, this involves physical, mental and psychological pain. Mill placed a high value on this individual freedom, saying that one should have sovereignty over the things that didn’t affect other people, whether or not it led to the best outcome for that individual. He also says that good consequences depend on the quality of pleasure as well as quantity. This higher happiness stresses self-development and develops peoples rational nature.

When discussing types of euthanasia, for instance voluntary euthanasia, a follower of Mills utilitarianism may apply his notion of victimless crime, as there is no crime since the patient wishes to die. However although a patient has had their wish and the doctor is simply carrying it out, there are still effects on society and on the doctor-patient relationship, thus making society itself the victim as human life loses its value.

Singer agrees that we should look beyond merely pleasure, to people’s interests. This sort of ‘welfare’ utilitarianism would ask what was best for the people concerned. In the case of someone suffering from cancer, Singer might ask whether the illness was curable, whether it was terminal and whether it led to great suffering. Singer’s response will be similar to a

Modern Utilitarians like Hare have argued that people don’t just value pleasure. If someone was suffering from a serious weakening