Williams Arguments Against Euthanasia

Williams’ first argument states his belief in which every human has the will to live. The will to live is a psychological force to fight for survival which is an important process of conscious and unconscious reasoning which is why the first argument is The Argument from Nature. Williams says, “Our bodies are similarly structured for survival right down to the molecular level” (2). However, euthanasia goes against this belief. He starts by making an appeal to religion by saying, “It is possible, but not necessary, to make an appeal to revealed religion in this connection. Man as trustee of his body acts against God, its rightful possessor, when he takes his own life” (Williams 2). He then continues to say that he doesn’t include this in his argument because religious beliefs are not mutual among all people. Euthanasia takes away our dignity which denies our basic human character.
The second argument is The Argument from Self-Interest. Euthanasia is the allowing of working against our best interests. There are flaws with this as with many other solutions
If euthanasia is allowed Williams feels like it would have a negative effect on the medical professionals in the industry. “It could have a corrupting influence so that in any case that is severe doctors and nurses might not try hard enough to save the patient” (3). This would cause the quality of doctors to decline. He uses the slippery slope effect to help explain the results in euthanasia became a policy. If a person is unable to take their own life, they have someone make the decisions for them. “Already at this point euthanasia is not personal and voluntary, for others are acting ‘on behalf of’ the patient as they see fit” (3). This will then cause directed euthanasia instead of voluntary. Mental illnesses also have a large role in the decisions of euthanasia. Like the death penalty, euthanasia has too many risks for us to employ it as a