Philosophy

The identity theory, which was developed in the 1950s, states that the states and processes of the mind are just the same as those of the brain. In short, the theory is trying to tell us that the mind is always affected by the brain and that anything that does not possess a brain cannot have a mind. The identity theory also implies that for every mental state, there is a corresponding brain state which is identical to it. An example of brain state is the firing of the C fibers which corresponds to the mental state of pain.

One thing that that further strengthened the early beginnings of the identity theory was the case of the Phineas Gage in 1848. The supposed changes in Gages behavior after having his brain severely damaged by a steel bar have led many mind experts at that time to conclude that brain states alter mind states, thus establishing a direct connection between them.

However, although the identity theory is supported by plenty of evidence from science, it lends itself to several weaknesses. It is therefore the goal of this paper to prove that the identity theory is not correct. Various arguments will be explained in this paper in order to prove the falsity of the identity theory.

Exegesis
In the years that followed after the development of the identity theory, several theories have been formulated by scientists in order to refute its validity and to prove that the whole theory is partly or wholly unsound.

Thought Probe Mental Relay Stations. The argument of Cartesian dualists is that we think with our minds and not with our brains. Cartesian dualism holds that the brain is nothing more than a mental relay station between the mind and the body (Schick and Vaughn ).

Simply speaking this argument involves the following basic steps The mind (not the brain) relays a specific message to the brain ( The brain (not the mind) acts out the message by commanding the specific parts of the body to fulfill it ( Feedback may be sent by the brain back to the mind. This simply means that the brain and the mind are independent with the brain performing a more or less servile function while the mind is the one in command.

The Cartesian dualists have formulated this argument against the identity theory because they believe that the world consists of two fundamental entities  mind and matter, and that there always exists a clear and distinct separation between the spiritual and the physical  between mind and body.

According to the Cartesian dualists, it is mind that commands matter, not vice versa. This implies that it is impossible to think that the brain commands the mind in the same way that the mind commands the brain. All these implications have sought to disprove the identity theory.

Identity and Indiscernibility. This argument states that if two things, such as the mind and the brain, are indeed the same, then it logically follows that what is true to one must also be true to the other (Schick and Vaughn ). The problem is that mental states have several characteristics that brain states do not have. It therefore follows that mental states are not identical to brain states, which leads us to the conclusion that the identity theory is false.

An example to illustrate this argument is the phenomenon of pain. If one is experiencing pain, he knows that he is in a particular mental state, i.e., the mental state of pain. However, he has clearly no idea what particular brain state he is experiencing at the moment. This simply implies that mental states are immediately knowable while brain states arent.

Another difference between brain states and mental states is the fact that brain states are not immediately experienced while mental states are. For example, when you see your mother, you know you love her and you know you are happy. These are your mental states. However, you do not exactly know what the state of your brain is at that particular moment  or if ever anything is happening to it.

Conscious Experience, Nagels Bat and Nagels Argument. Perhaps one of the most striking differences between mental states and brain states is that brain states can be known and confirmed by empirical investigation whereas mental states cannot. This implies that brain states can be objectively known but mental states can be known only by being the one that possesses such a mental state.

The American philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in his article What Is It Like to Be a Bat that every conscious being knows what it is like to be a being of such sort and this conscious experience or mental state cannot and can never be  measured objectively and empirically (Schick and Vaughn ).

The point is that even if you can analyze a bats brain in full and complete detail so that you will be able to know every neural pathway in it (brain state), you will still not be able to know what exactly it is like to be a bat (mental state). The only way for you to be able to know this is that you yourself should become a bat. Even that is not exact as there might still be a difference in the mental states of one who became a bat from the one who was born a bat. It therefore follows that not everything about mental states can be known through brain states. This means that mental states are not identical to brain states, which further means that the identity theory is false.

Nagels argument can be illustrated in this way Empirical information about bats known by humans ( knowledge of brain states of bats, while a bats experience (not possible for humans) of its being ( knowledge of mental states of bats.

Thought Experiment Lewiss Pained Martian. Another American philosopher David Kellogg Lewis created the theory of a Martian who had no neurons and no brain but can feel pain just like we do (Schick and Vaughn ). Lewis is trying to prove here that the physical brain and its corresponding brain states are not necessary to elicit certain mental states like pain. This independence of mental states from brain states implies that there is a clear difference between the two, thus disproving the identity theory. Lewis is trying to tell us that if the identity theory were true, then only beings with a brain can feel pain and other mental states, no exceptions.

Simply, Lewiss idea can be illustrated as follows Small cavities in the Martians feet (not brain) ( pain (a mental state).

Evaluation
The Cartesian Dualists argument on the brains role as a Mental Relay Station may prove to be weak if it has to answer the question What makes the brain the relay station and not the mind Nevertheless, this argument is strengthened by the scientific evidence that generally people have to think first (through the mind) before they can do something (through the brains commands). This difference between the mind and the brain is also demonstrated during an emergency where we feel agitated first (through the mind) before we can run away from danger (through the brains commands).

The next argument, Identity and Indiscernibility, may also have a weakness in that just because one thing cannot be ascertained does not necessarily mean that it is otherwise. However, it still follows that if mental states are really the same as brain states, then they must be the same in all respects. For example, if you love someone (mental state), you are supposed to know that there are corresponding changes in your brain that serve as physiological evidence of this love (brain state). However, you do not know these and even if there were really corresponding love responses in the brain, the connection of which with your mental state of love cannot be accurately determined. The Scottish philosopher David Hume theorized before that what we see between two things happening one after the other might only be mere unrelated sequence and not a cause-and-effect relationship.

Conscious experience and Nagels bat argument are a more definite proof against the identity theory. Mental state is definitely a vague term if defined objectively, but whatever it is, it is the particular experience of the being. Brain states cannot be the same with mental states because brain states are quantifiable while the latter are purely subjective. Furthermore, this subjectivity may even be equated with non-existence, which, for the strictest empiricists, could mean that the so-called mind does not even exist.

Lewiss Pained Martian may be subject to criticism because the idea of a Martian is simply a random mental thought which could have been thought of just to disprove something. Nevertheless, this Martian hypothesis remains a challenge to the identity theory. It seeks to ask the proponents of the identity theory this very difficult question Why do you think only the brain can produce mental states and not any other thing.

In light of these aforementioned theories and arguments, I maintain that the identity theory is incorrect.

The identity theory is not correct. First and foremost, it cannot substantially defend itself from the arguments advanced against its validity. The identity theory has not established enough evidence to counter the differences between brain states and mental states that Nagels argument has postulated. The identity theory also appears narrow-minded when viewed from Lewiss Pained Martian. Moreover, the identity theory cannot establish clear foolproof evidence that the mind and the brain are one and identical that is why it is still in constant attack by the dualists and those who have proposed the indiscernibility argument.

Part 1
Creative Thinking.
Construct as many metaphors as you can about five different things that describe any aspect of your life, such as someone you know, something you do, some place you have been, or anything else. Refer to Activity 7.1, located in Ch. 7 of Thinking, for examples on how to create metaphors.

Example
Event PersonPlace Mother
Metaphor A mountain in the mist Strong and everlasting A blanket of safety and comfort.

An Ex-
A locked treasure box A hemorrhage of reason A moratorium of promises An emotional abscess A finished novel.

Favorite book
A faithful and trusted friend A portal of escape A pillow laced with promises of dreams An old, magical grab-bag A shifting kaleidoscope.

Bedroom
A single-occupancy sanctuary A guarded fortress A years-old garden of creativity A yard sale waiting to happen.

An empty page
A playground for the mind An unplanted seed An overwhelmingly quiet taunt An unexplored universe.

Writing
My happy place A releasing of caged bulls A loud but soothing waterfall A transfer of chaos A melding of dreams with reality Drawing a face one saw in the stars Coloring in a faded sketch.

BoyfriendGirlfriendLove
An incessant smile Lingering traces of a dream Dragonflies dancing in the twilight A tempestuous ocean A memory-laden scent A stalwart boat in the sea of sanity A never-ending story.

Hong Kong
A brighter, inverted night sky A smorgasbord of culture and time Consumerism in a beautiful box A concrete jungle adventure A gigantic little world.

Coffee
The start of every morning An elixir of life The basic substance of creativity A different kind of social lubricant A fuel for the mind.

Part 2
NaturalMental Orders
Organize two sets of information using natural and mental orders. Refer to the NaturalMental Orders section in Ch. 8 of Thinking for additional guidance.

Example
Type of Organization Natural Order Chronological
Example Seeds grow into plants, flower or fruit, produce more seeds, fall to the ground, take root, and produce another plant

Natural Order Chronological
Water on the earth evaporates into water vapor, water vapor condenses into a cloud, and the cloud precipitates rain back to the earth.

Mental Order Causal
People killed cats thinking they were evil and brought curses, people also unknowingly brought rats which carried fleas infected with the Bubonic Plague, without cats the rats multiplied rapidly, the dramatically increasing population of rats found their way to different parts of Europe carrying the plague with them, and over 25 million people died from it.

Mental Order Logical
Special clothes are folded neatly in the closet, newly washed clothes are placed on hangers above the folded clothes, dirty clothes go in the laundry basket, damaged clothes go in a pile beside the sewing machine, and unwanted clothes go in the donation box.

Perception philosophy
The nature of the sensory experiences we encounter each and every day can appropriately be related to reality and this is the basis of perceptual philosophy. I have in many occasions raised questions concerning the conscious character of the perceptual experiences and which kind of awareness we have when we hallucinate or dream. Sometimes, the sensory experiences enable us to access the hidden secrets of the knowledge of the world where we live in. My questions that I have been contemplating of have not only raised creative thinking in me but have been the centre of interest in the field of epistemology, metaphysics and the philosophical study of mind.

Manipulation of Perception
The manner we perceive objects can be quite different in the way the objects can be in reality. The main reason attributed to this form of ideology is based on the observation that indeed perception and reality are two individual items. The two autonomously exist in our minds. Perhaps, this can be different when we take the same items to non humans, say a monkey or a non primate such as a pig. Humans have the capacity to think and thinking is an active process involving the participation of active elements in the brain.

Thinking
A conscious human has to think and all thinking processes begin with knowledge. Knowledge may refer to a good understanding of a concept or a rough know how about what the element before us is like.

Perception far from reality
Some time back I was met with a puzzle where a musician was wholly covered with a costume made of a skin of a monkey. In the entertainment room, there were a couple of pre-school children. There were other elderly men and women and also the youth. My observation about what the children were really having in their minds was the image if a true monkey in front but some who were courageous enough could take some candies and biscuits to feed the monkey. Contrary to what was happening to elderly audience, some of the pre-school going children got frightened and started crying.

Memory My observation in the entertainment room proved to me that in perception process, humans utilize the knowledge they have acquired prior to the current time.  Memory is utilized in the perception process. Memory is stored in facts which we retrieve when we are invoked to. The children did not have any prior knowledge about what the monkeys were neither did they know what exactly the monkeys would do to them. The knowledge of the elderly about the monkeys automatically granted them the courage to stay and watch the musician do his performance. The children who feared reached the second step of thinking and made a conclusion that the object they saw was potentially dangerous. In comprehension, we realize what we think about. Comprehension is important in the thinking process and it enables us to think effectively. This part of perception process is developed with age and the small children who started crying because of the musician in a monkeys mask had not developed the part of comprehension process.

The perception and sensing process
In the perception process, application becomes important in executing any reaction concerning what is presented before us. Perception devoid of application becomes worthless. All our thoughts should be applied so as to generate the appropriate reactions. I may not appropriately execute a reaction for what I see or hear basically because doing so could be likened to a mother who after becoming pregnant decides to abort the baby before term. Perception process should be allowed to mature through stages in order to realize good results. Analysis process which follows application will give a critical feel in the perceptual process. The breaking of ideas into segments leads to considerable attention being paid to each aspect so that good judgment is made.

Critical thinking must involve synthesis which is a process of organizing, building up and finalizing on the previously initialized process. Evaluation wills eventually finalize the perceptual process and at this time elements such as sensing process and memory should not have any bias on the final result.

What was happening
The scenario of the crying children and the musician masked in monkeys skin did not rather fool me. I can remember a situation when I met a leper lying down and showing real agony for somebody to help. I was walking along the backstreets after four oclock tea to play some pool game before I get back home. Along the street, the leper was there receiving donations from well wishers. The first impression I made was the person was truly a leper and owing that people were stopping to donate some dollars for the person she really qualified to be a leper. This scenario was different from what I had experienced with the small children in the entertaining room. This time round time, it was my turn I got fooled and donated to her some 100. Returning in the evening, I passed through the same place and I was shocked seeing the leper walk straight right into a car. She had managed to fool many.

Barriers and thoughts
The two examples of occasions clearly show that perception is not the same as reality. It requires some critical analysis of issues before taking any rational decision. My personal barrier in the situation of the leper was not the language but the perceptual analysis which got aborted before term.

Hobbes view on sovereignty is not based on the arguments that he derived from his discussion of man. The essence of commonwealth, according to him, is one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants, one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense. The one that carries this person is called sovereign and he is also said to have sovereign power. Understanding what is meant by person, author and covenant is of utmost importance since they bear a critical relationship with Hobbes view on state and sovereignty.

Hobbes view on sovereignty can be interpreted din two conflicting ways. These two interpretations provide divergent answers to Hobbes investigation into the source of sovereigns rights. One of these views holds that the sovereigns rights are not based on an original contract instituting the commonwealth. According to this perspective, the sovereigns rights are exclusively derived from the nature of the sovereign. In this regard, sovereign rights are determined exclusively by the concept of sovereignty. The concept would be dissolved into absurdity by any association of sovereign rights to an original contract.

The other interpretation holds that sovereigns rights are based on an original contract. According to this perspective, sovereigns derive their rights from a contract between subjects with their continuation being dependent upon the contracts abiding force. The former interpretation corresponds closely with Hobbes intention even though the latter interpretation is partially correct. Hobbes unambiguously states that the rights of sovereigns are not owed to a contract. He states that the view that any monarch derives his power by covenant emanates from the understanding that covenants have no binding force since they are only words but rather proceed from the people or person who has sovereignty.

If specific sovereigns rights are assessed, it is likely to be discovered that they belong to the sovereign authority by virtue of the concepts constitution. For instance, sovereigns cannot be overthrown for, that king whose power is restricted is not superior to the person or persons who have the power to restrict it, and the person who is not superior is not supreme or sovereign. Sovereigns are responsible for making decisions or judgments on what is necessary for their subjects in terms of peace and defense. Sovereigns also judge the kind of doctrines and opinions that spread among the people. They design the rules of reward and punishment, the rules of choosing ministers, the rules of making war and peace and the rules that the subjects live by. In short, sovereignty cannot be fragmented.

There are three basic processes involved in organizing information cognition, rationality, and systematization. Cognition is the process of reacting to stimulus (located in the external environment). Information is a special type of stimulus which requires the mind to engage in the process of interpretation. Rationality is the process of interpreting the perceived stimulus. Systematization is the process in which stimulus are organized according to certain criteria. These processes occur simultaneously, as the human brain can processes billions of raw data from the environment.

In essence, natural order is the moral law from which natural law seeks to derive its authority. It encompasses all natural relationships, and in the absence of law, it assumes supremacy.

Mental order may be viewed as the general state of the mind. It is characterized by stability, orderliness, rationality, and the absence of mental disabilities. Philosophically speaking, the term connotes the minds natural state of affairs  characterized by tranquility, happiness, and to some extent, willful existence. There may be a relation between the two different ordering processes. Mental order is a concept derived from the essence of natural order. Indeed, the former is a reflection of the latter.

A metaphor is an analogy between two objects or ideas.  A metaphor asserts that two things are of the same essence. Indeed, if an individual says to another individual You are a monkey  a robber, the receiving individual falls into either anger or disgrace. In short, the effect of a metaphor can be devastating (this of course varies from one individual to another). Some people are greatly affected by the metaphor whilst others are not. The effectiveness of a metaphor also depends on the cultural setting itself, for example, language. Linguistic terms vary from culture to culture. A simple term in one may be of great importance to another. Thus, when metaphors are disseminated to a multi-cultural audience, it is can be interpreted differently. In short, there is no such thing as an absolute metaphor.

One of the human dilemmas that philosophers have failed to concur upon is whether human beings are free to decide the course of their individual lives. Determinists, those who hold the cause- effect theory, argue that events, behavior and actions are determined by forces outside human control. Their opponents, the indeterminists, counter this thesis by arguing for the capacity of human beings to reason and exercise free will in deciding their actions. Their major argument is that there is always an alternative and accordingly, a choice to make.

David Hume is one proponent of the first school of thought. In his argument for determinism, he posits that events must necessarily follow a causal agent. In the strictest sense of his principle of determinism, there has never been an event for which there was no cause. It then follows that in the absence of a cause, nothing will happen. In simple logic, it rains because clouds formed first, an event which was preceded by another cause i.e. condensation of moisture in the atmosphere. The processes and forces that lead to rain, your existence, the shape of your head and such irreversible occurrences, Hume argues, are determined and had to happen just the way they did. But then, as we will realize later, these claim holds water only in so far as the argument is limited to scientific explanation of things. For, when we extend the excursion to human behavior and actions, it easily falls apart.

At this point, it seems only necessary- for the very reason of discourse balance- to highlight the central tenets of another perspective, i.e. the argument for the freedom of free will on the basis of moral judgment and regret by William James.

James observes that people do regret their actions if they ended up hurting them andor others. They also make moral judgments of wrongdoing and condemn acts considered evil, illegal or immoral. Legal provisions or popular opinion shape peoples way of thinking and restrict behavior to conform to certain codes of conduct. By judgment we consciously examine and critique human conduct, and by regret discredit past actions. If we regret x, then we are judging that it would have been better if x had not happened, and we would have acted otherwise. In addition, guilty feelings following some wrongdoing indicate that ones conscience is acutely aware of the wrongdoing itself and the knowledge that doing otherwise would have been appropriate. In summary, his views on the human freedom of will are woven into three tenets namely
humans make judgments of regret,
they morally approve or disapprove events and actions and,
free will is pragmatically true.

In the next section, we will critically examine the theses of the two philosophers, and discuss how both make a convincing argument that one, events are determined by universal laws which human beings could not change, and two, judgment of regrets point to the existence of human freedom of will.

Perhaps Humes plunge to the extreme end of determinism is when he asserts, with no trace of self-doubt whatsoever, that it is not only the case that every event has a cause, but that the results of that cause could in no way be different from what they already are (Engel, Soldan and Durand, 2007 p 266). In other words, if Jack hit Jill because Jill ate his chocolate, then it follows that there is no way Jill could have avoided eating the chocolate, and Jack, on his part, could not control himself from swinging his hand to slap Jill it just couldnt happen in any other way. Complete balderdash, of course, but then determinism staunchly holds that there is always one and only one way in which things can happen and that is exactly the way they did, so irreversible and completely forgone. Think about it would have you avoided being white or black Would have those who perished in Haiti influenced their fate Twenty five days later, a survivor was pulled from the debris and shambles of the earthquake. Who made survival and death happen so selectively Not a shred of human will and this is a big score for Hume.

Consider death humans must die, and surely they will. This is one life situation that puts weight on Humes philosophy. Why, because nobody wishes death, and yet nobody can do anything about it. The universal law that determines the course of the universe makes it a settled deal there is a stage in life, regardless the sentiments of free will, at which all living things must come to an end.

Nevertheless, Hume does not fail to give his opinion, however unrealistic, of what he considers the exercise of free will in human behavior. According to him, free will is exercised only when the circumstances leading to an action do not presuppose any compulsion, constraint or coercion by external forces (Engel, Soldan and Durand 2007). It shouldnt have anything to do with the law of causality. Thus, when you scratch an itching on your skin, you have not exercised any free will at all the itch compelled the action of moving your hand to the itching place. On the contrary, you would have been in total command of your behavior if you had completely ignored it. This sounds like a very awkward interpretation of the thesis, but then the argument itself stretches the rules of reality and practicality to a very absurd degree, such that a realistic interpretation will contradict the logic of the reasoning that conjures such a thesis. In any case, Hume himself is trying to avoid contradicting his determinist stand by spelling out conditions that make absolute free will practically impossible. In so doing, he supports his argument that everything is caused by something else. The only shortcoming Humes thesis faces, it turns out, is accounting for the existence of the original cause it doesnt save a Christian from an atheist intent to know who caused God before He caused everything else.

At which point we consider William James rationale. Why do people regret after doing something that ended horribly wrong Why the expression I wish I knew Or You ought not to have done that. It could only mean that there was another way one could have handled or responded to a situation.
When peace of mind eludes a person as a result of hisher actions, then it implies that he takes responsibility of the situation. Responsibility, James finally argues, points to the fact that people have freedom of will, and that they are the willing agents of most events. He rejects determinism as a mere attempt to deny responsibility for failure to do what ought to have been done but wasnt, either because it seemed impossible or due to lack of foresight at the time. When they realize later that it was possible or right to do otherwise, they regret, feel guilty and make some moral judgments.
But then, James does not concentrate upon defending human freedom of the will by explaining how or why it exists, but rather by critiquing a world fully controlled by universal laws, where all events are sort of conditioned and automated to happen in consistence with universal causes. If things were designed to happen in a particular way, why then do people seek education Why, the doctor should have still become a doctor without going to med school. And oh yes, McCain shouldnt have bothered running against Obama because, Hume claims, it was already determined that he could not win.
It could be a very boring world indeed, if the future and events were determined and settled. There will be no motive or incentive doing anything at all. On the contrary, however, people have clear goals and objectives about their actions. Most of the times, if not all, people know why they are doing what they do, know what they want, where and how to get it. If not so, then you shouldnt regret failing in your exams, feel guilty for treating another person bad, or hate the man who blew up the Twins Towers and killed your dad. The reason, if you believe Hume, is because it was not your fault that you failed- you were supposed to fail not your fault that you mistreated someone- it was necessary not the terrorists will to hijack planes and ram them into the Twins Towers- it was designed that way. Makes life look pale and sick, doesnt it

Yet again, some things happen for which we cant take responsibility. Like the Haiti earthquake, people born with hemophilia or albinism, your flat nose which you dont like, or the job you lost because of the global economic crisis- events conditioned by forces that our collective or individual free will cant stop. It seems that some universal laws are at work.

But then, the kid whose parents died in Baghdad believes that somebody at Washington could have made the difference. Those who jibed Bush for the invasion must have made some judgments and concluded that the President could have done better he had an alternative that he either ignored or was too war-obsessed to see. It is possible that wherever he is, he is silently regretting, Sorry, folks, some Saddam- phobia scared the hell out of me

And so we find ourselves in a dilemma nobody wishes to dispute scientific reasoning, like the rotation of the earth which causes day and night. Again, nobody would like a world where rape is acceptable because it must occur. However, our lives are not about what already is, but about what we make them to be. Rape is something that happens, but which shouldnt happen. The world has all sorts of possibilities, but most of them we make probable. The bottom line is that human beings are endowed with a conscience, making them different from other creatures. We have the capacity to deliberate about possible actions and make a choice. We plan for our futures, and make decisions according to our goals. Yes, people have freedom of free will, by which they shape their lives and those of others.

As science and technology are rapidly developing at an increasing rate there has been a visible difference in the lives of people as well. This rapid development has surely contributed to solving many of our problems but it has also giving rise to new issues and dilemmas which are a constant source of disagreement for many of us. One such dilemma our society faces is of euthanasia or mercy killing. For some its a source of relief in instances where pain becomes unmanageable for the patient and a good death seems to be the only way by which the person in pain can be given some peace.

However, there are others who find euthanasia just a different type of suicide and consider it an illogical option whatsoever is the condition of the patient. Thus we are living in a community in which people are confusing usefulness of life with ethical values. The people here consider human life as important as long it is serving some purpose like offering a career social life and joy. Hence, life at its own does not have any value. And any life that instead demands a greater amount of love, care and acceptance is seen as a burden. So the dilemma here is that is killing in any form is same as killing.

Mercy killing by definition is the simplest means to end life of any being that is in a state of chronic pain or is suffering from a disease from which restoring health is irrevocable. Thus, to end the misery of the being suffering from such a condition mercy killing proposes that the suffering should be ended by ending life in a less painful manner. Such suffering is brought to an end by either a lethal injection or withdrawal of medical assistance being given. Here the motive is to end the life of the being that has now become dependent on means other than him or her and this is for his or her assumed advantage.

There are various types of mercy killing activities that are being conducted worldwide. There is one scenario where people themselves made a request to end their life. This situation is called voluntary euthanasia where the dying persons consent is taken. Another scenario here is that an individual facing suffering neither makes any such request to end their life nor do they give their consent. This situation is called involuntary euthanasia. And finally there exists another form of mercy killing where a person makes a request that they do not want to take advantage of euthanasia but still is given such a situation is that of non-voluntary euthanasia where life becomes not good enough for existence. And some other human being tries to act like God and becomes the decision maker of some other human beings fortune.

Hence, there are those who in every scenario consider it immoral to kill someone even the extremely sick and the elderly ones. For the elderly ones, they say deserve our attention and care just like they had bestowed our life with necessities and prospects of growth and success. And now in a situation when they are suffering then one should not become materialistic and discard them by treating as a burden. Where as for the ones who are actually experiencing irrepressible physical pain, alleviating their pain by eliminating their life does not seem to be a senile thing to do.

To counter these arguments made by those who are in against the usage of euthanasia is that the right thing to do in favor of the humanity is to allow a more widespread and easier access of pain controlling medicine across places where people are euthanized. These medicines can to a greater extent control the degree of pain being suffered by the patients. The reason any pain controlling medicine fails to function is that the medical practitioners are insufficiently trained and are probably using inadequate and obsolete means to stop the sufferings of their patients.

If these people and their support systems begin to offer more equipped services and up-to-date means of pain reducing medicines then it can be guaranteed that the need for euthanasia may never arise. So the need here is to provide the best possible pain reducing medication and that too at costs which are bearable by rich and poor alike and dont make one feel that keeping someone alive is a burden. A major risk that is associated with the conduct of euthanasia is pertinent to non-voluntary euthanasia. Here a lot of healthy people tend to lose their lives because someone else misused the right to mercy kill due to support of the system that supports mercy killing.

Hence, there is a substantial proportion of those who misuse this exercise and conduct planned murders for their personal good. The critics of euthanasia say that even if the elderly are continued to be slaughtered like this in name of mercy killing. Then for the benefit of a few people the society would be indirectly legalizing genocide. Euthanasia has every single chance of being used against not just the terminally ill or elderly but also to get rid of any unwanted people.

Hence, in any scenario the critics of mercy killing view it as an unjustifiable when people say that by employing euthanasia one is indeed maintaining the honor of human life by giving a person a chance to choose a peaceful death over a life which is far away from becoming peaceful. And the critics also say it is debasing the loved ones to make them feel like a burden on others due to their ill health. Such an action is hazardous for the self respect of any individual as no one would want to be treated as an object of inconvenience rather than a loved one in poor state of health.

This dilemma can only be solved if the people are able to understand that there is a major difference between actively or passively taking someones life and letting nature itself complete its course of action. If we present this argument in a perspective of the religions around the world then beyond any doubt all of them stand united against barbaric action by humans. Religions believe that life has been given to humans to fulfill some purpose and is a blessing not a curse. And hence, no individual on their own or on any one elses part has no authority to cut short anyone elses life. As life gives every individual absolute right to liberty, choice and happiness and if these rights are to be exercised then a person should be given the right to live not the right to die. As that is the role which nature and God not human beings have to play.