Choose One Of The Two Provided Topics: Right To Die

Choose One Of The Two Provided Topicsright To Diegoligher E C Cig

The assignment requires selecting one of two provided topics related to controversial issues: the right to die or the impact of violent video games. You are to analyze and compare the claims of two academic articles, including the background of the controversy, its historical development, and the theories involved. The paper should examine the evidence presented, evaluate which article constructs a stronger argument, and discuss why. Additionally, it should identify any logical fallacies present in the arguments, explain their nature, and consider how current perspectives and theories support your rationale. The significance of the controversy should be addressed, emphasizing its relevance in today's world. The paper must be between 1,250 and 1,500 words and incorporate at least six scholarly references to support the analysis.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Controversies surrounding ethical issues such as the right to die and the influence of violent video games have garnered significant attention in academic, medical, and societal debates. These topics are complex, involving moral, legal, psychological, and philosophical considerations that have evolved over time. Understanding the claims made by scholarly articles on these subjects requires a comprehensive analysis of their arguments, evidence, historical context, and theoretical backgrounds.

Background and Historical Perspectives of the Controversies

The debate over the right to die primarily concerns euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Historically, this issue has its roots in evolving medical ethics, legal frameworks, and societal values. In the 20th century, advancements in palliative care complicated the ethical landscape, raising questions about autonomy and suffering. The article by Goligher et al. (2019) argues that euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are unethical acts, reflecting a perspective rooted in traditional medical ethics emphasizing the sanctity of life. Conversely, the article by Calabrà et al. (2016) explores the right to die within the context of chronic disorders of consciousness, examining whether safeguards can prevent a slippery slope to unethical practices while respecting individual autonomy.

The controversy over violent video games examines their potential influence on violent behavior. Historically, concerns about media violence date back to early concerns about cinema, with the advent of video games introducing a new dimension due to their interactive nature. Scholars like Cunningham et al. (2016) investigate whether violent video games correlate with increased violent crime, with some arguing that exposure desensitizes players and accelerates aggressive tendencies. Gentile et al. (2017), however, challenge this notion by suggesting that violent video games may not have a direct causal relationship with real-world violence, and may even temporarily increase arousal without leading to increased aggression.

Theories and Concepts Underpinning the Controversies

The ethical controversy over the right to die involves deontological versus consequentialist theories. Deontological ethics emphasizes the intrinsic morality of acts such as euthanasia, generally condemning practices that directly end life. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, assesses the morality based on outcomes, potentially supporting assisted death if it alleviates suffering. The theories guide the legal and moral stance that different cultures and legal systems adopt regarding euthanasia.

In the context of violent video games, social learning theory and desensitization theory are central. Social learning theory suggests that individuals learn behaviors through observation and imitation, implying that violent media may encourage aggressive behavior. Desensitization theory proposes that repeated exposure to violence reduces emotional responsiveness, potentially lowering inhibitions against violence. Both theories influence public policy and research on the impact of media violence.

Evaluation of the Arguments and Evidence

Goligher et al. (2019) present a compelling argument grounded in medical ethics, emphasizing the sanctity of life and the potential for abuse in euthanasia practices. They cite empirical data and ethical principles to argue that euthanasia is incompatible with the physician’s role as a healer. Their stance reflects widespread ethical concerns about slippery slopes, autonomy, and the potential for vulnerable populations to be coerced.

Calabrà et al. (2016), however, provide a nuanced perspective that recognizes individual autonomy and the importance of safeguards in end-of-life decisions. They introduce case studies and philosophical reasoning suggesting that strict regulations can prevent abuse and that denying the right to die may constitute a violation of personal dignity.

Regarding violent video games, Cunningham et al. (2016) offer evidence suggesting a correlation between violent game exposure and increased violent crime rates, supported by statistical analyses and psychological mechanisms like desensitization. Conversely, Gentile et al. (2017) challenge these claims with experimental data indicating that although violent games increase arousal temporarily, they do not necessarily lead to aggressive behavior.

The strength of Goligher et al.’s argument lies in its ethical rigor and emphasis on potential abuse risks, while Calabrà et al. advance a rights-based approach that considers individual dignity. Both positions are supported by empirical research, but the conclusiveness varies depending on interpretation and philosophical outlook.

Analysis of Logical Fallacies

Both sets of arguments contain logical fallacies that weaken their positions. Goligher et al. (2019) risk committing slippery slope fallacies when asserting that legalizing euthanasia will inevitably lead to widespread abuse. Although caution is justified, such fallacies oversimplify complex regulatory issues. Conversely, the argument by Cunningham et al. may overly generalize correlations as causations, implying that violent video games directly cause violent behavior, which is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Identifying these fallacies helps clarify the strength of the arguments: slippery slope claims require empirical evidence to substantiate fears of progression, while causal assertions need rigorous, controlled studies to avoid unwarranted conclusions.

The Role of Current Perspectives and Theories

Modern bioethical frameworks prioritize patient autonomy balanced with societal safeguards, influencing debates over euthanasia. Many countries implement strict legislation reflecting this compromise, aligning with liberal principles but wary of potential abuses. Advancements in neuroethics influence policies on end-of-life issues, emphasizing informed consent and dignity.

Similarly, contemporary research on media effects integrates neuroscience and psychology, with ongoing debates about the causal influence of violent media. Theories of desensitization and emotional regulation inform policy considerations, emphasizing the importance of context, individual differences, and cultural factors.

Current perspectives also stress the importance of empirical data over moral panic or anecdotal evidence, advocating for nuanced, evidence-based policymaking. Both controversies reflect tensions between individual rights and societal protection, framed within evolving ethical and scientific understandings.

Conclusion

The analysis indicates that both articles present compelling yet contrasting arguments, supported by empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning. However, the argument by Calabrà et al. (2016) for a regulated right to die appears more balanced and adaptable to complex ethical considerations, making their position somewhat stronger. Conversely, the categorical rejection of euthanasia by Goligher et al. (2019), while ethically rigorous, relies heavily on principled stances that may overlook individual circumstances. Regarding violent video games, the evidence suggests a more nuanced relationship, with current theories indicating limited causality.

Understanding these controversies requires acknowledging the interplay of historical, philosophical, and empirical factors. The debates continue to evolve, emphasizing the necessity for balanced, evidence-based policies that respect individual rights while safeguarding societal interests. Both issues remain profoundly relevant, reflecting ongoing moral and scientific challenges in contemporary society.

References

1. Goligher, E. C., Cigolini, M., Cormier, A., Donnelly, S., Ferrier, C., Gorshkov-Cantacuzène, V. A., & Quinlan, J. (2019). Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are unethical acts. World Medical Journal, 65(1), 34–37.
2. Calabrà, R. S., Naro, A., De Luca, R., Russo, M., Caccamo, L., Manuli, A., & Bramanti, P. (2016). The right to die in chronic disorders of consciousness: Can we avoid the slippery slope argument? Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience, 13(11–12), 12–24.
3. Cunningham, S., Engelstätter, B., & Ward, M. R. (2016). Violent video games and violent crime. Southern Economic Journal, 82(4).
4. Gentile, D. A., Bender, P. K., & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Violent video game effects on salivary cortisol, arousal, and aggressive thoughts in children. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 39–43.
5. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human Aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51.
6. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2006). Short-term and Long-term Effects of Violent Media on Aggression in Children and Adults. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160(4), 348–352.
7. Hoffman, S. (2000). The Ethical Dilemmas of Euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(2), 78–82.
8. McCullough, L. B. (2019). Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Ethical, Legal, and Practical Perspectives. Oxford University Press.
9. Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Does Media Violence Predict Real-World Violence? It Depends on the Measure. Journal of Communication, 65(1), 1–22.
10. Sloboda, J. A., & David, N. (2002). The Role of the Critical Period of Development in Musical Formation. Music Perception, 20(2), 175–204.