The story has made me have a deeply consideration in “The Suicide of Admiral Nimitz,” on his believe to commit suicide. The ways I can fully explain this case is by placing myself in Nimitz’s perspective about suicide and the judgments individuals decide on when killing oneself. On the other hand, I strongly oppose to any suicidal situation because it is immoral to murder any human’s life. Additionally, I will further analyze this situation based on my personal moral believes.
I am aware of Nimitz’s situation why he ended his life coming from deteriorating health to unwillingness to departure from his wife led him to extreme measures. First, we must all understand that we have different mind set of ego on how we approach morality. We can express certain beliefs by emotions, God’s principles, or for the sake of one’s own termination. “We have consciously, rationally, deliberately and our own free will taken measures to end our lives today because of the physical limitations on our quality of life placed upon us…” (289).
His own mentality reflects him to act upon his own suicide according to the moral norms that he obtained. Furthermore, I agree that Nimitz and like everyone else has the free will on the choices he makes in his life; nonetheless, I must emphasize that we must be careful on the decisions we choose to execute oneself because we don’t know exactly what is going to happen until we are actually living it. In my opinion, I am against euthanasia because we should all talk about our problems in various methods and seek a purpose in living a virtuous life.
If one is displeased with their life; moreover, it is essential for that person to communicate with their family or a professional psychiatrist. Euthanasia should be an exception; it is a way to mislead someone’s life without taking any consideration over cautious concerns they contain within themselves. Kant has once said, “… the rule of morality does not admit of [suicide] under any condition because it degrades human nature below the level of animal nature and so destroys it” (233). People should take the individual serious when they attempt to commit suicide and suggest them practical reasons to live by counseling.
Particularly, if mercy killing was exposed to our society it will deprave people’s mind on how they would approach death. Legalizing euthanasia, I “…fear that if these practices were legal, the disabled and the terminally ill may feel that because they could take advantage of an ‘early out’” (“Preface to ‘Would Legalizing Voluntary Euthanasia Lead to Abuses? ”). Voluntary euthanasia is legal in several countries, but I think of the odds if we were to universalize this controversy. People would excuse themselves by the use of euthanasia for any purpose to execute their life; as well as, lacking initiative to live after all.
Furthermore, mercy killing would encourage the human being to attempt it and assure the person that is acceptable to commit suicide with rational reason by all means. It takes self discipline and patience to be in a state of mind someone wants to accomplish. In life, there is so much to do rather to dwell on denial to be dead. In my point of view, I don’t care if that person is mentally ill to perform involuntary euthanasia; therefore, they should really think about those second chances in surviving.
We may not always want to live and endure the problems that life gives us but along the ride it makes us stronger to overcome these challenges. In conclusion, I do disagree with any suicidal case regardless how rational or irrational that person is. Death is not the answer for the escape of agony. Society should not legalize any kind of voluntary euthanasia because that would harm the soul. Let the person live despite the obstacles; thus, no one said life would be fair.