Read the following prompt. Then: 1. Standardize the argumen…
Read the following prompt. Then: 1. Standardize the argument in the passage; 2. Identify the fallacy, if any, present in the argument and 3. Explain the reasoning behind your choice. “People argue incessantly over the ethics of euthanasia, despite the answer being obvious — merely an extension our basic concern for the wellbeing and dignity of human beings. Euthanasia is the intentional, often doctor-assisted, ending of one’s own life. And, while the term itself does not make essential reference to any particular source of motivation. we assume that the rational euthanasia-seeker does so because their life has become intolerable to them — either because it promises an unacceptable amount of pain, or because the continuance of their life would result in their losing or sacrificing what they take to be valuable or worth living for (as in the case of irreversible demential or other loss of faculties). Opponents of euthanasia argue on multiple grounds, but most fall in one of two camps: (1) arguing on the grounds of the sanctity of human life; or (2) arguing from the irreversible character of euthanasia, exacerbated by the high possibility of error (in the euthanasia-seeker’s reasoning, or the medical professional’s judgement of the euthanasia seeker’s competence). Both lines of reasoning fail, however. Against 1, I argue that recognizing the sanctity of human life actually requires euthanasia, since the right to end one’s life is clearly is clearly a basic moral endowment of human beings. Against 2, I merely reiterate my first point; regardless of the difficulty in real-world implementation, the bundle of rights available to all human beings qua human beings (we tend to call these “human rights”) must include the right to self-termination if they are to mean anything at all. I conclude, therefore, that all human beings have a strong moral right to euthanasia.”