Showing 2 results for Aghab Babaee
Naser Aghab Babaee,
Volume 4, Issue 2 (4-2011)
Abstract
Theologians describe the difference between active and passive euthanasia as in the former, we kill hopeless patients terribly suffering from an incurable disease and in the latter, and we let them die. The present research aimed at exploring for a solution to an ethical dilemma by which the difference between foundational concepts of the two types of euthanasia can be examined. Another objective of the study was to assess personal characteristics regarding this judgment. One hundred and five students were recruited, and in addition to reading the trolley problem and answering the related questions, they responded to a six-point scale self-assessment on morality and a short 20-point scale questionnaire on the five principle personality factors. Results showed that 83.8% of respondents found it immoral to kill one person in order to save 5 lives. Respondents' gender, religiousness and personality had no significant effect on their responses regarding the footbridge dilemma (P<0.05). Nonetheless, extroversion had an almost significant relationship (P=0.056, r=0.19). According to the results of the present study, the difference between "killing" and "letting die" is clear to most people, and they do not prefer killing even when there is more benefit than loss. Responses to the trolley problem were independent of personal characteristics, nonetheless, the quality of extroversion is suggested a as a potential determinant of agreement with active euthanasia.
Naser Aghab Babaee, Javad Hatami,
Volume 4, Issue 3 (5-2011)
Abstract
Ethical research and theories assign great importance to the role of intention in passing moral judgments about individuals’ actions. The doctrine of double effect is among ethical disciplines that differentiate between controversial medical situations such as end of life care or abortion, and intentional, premeditated damage, in that they consider the former impermissible and the latter permissible under specific circumstances. The present paper was conducted to investigate the role of intention in judging a person’s actions, and to provide empirical evidence for the doctrine of double effect. 200 students were asked to evaluate the morality of two situations: in the first situation, one person needs to be killed so that five other persons can be saved. In the second, the killing of one person is the side effect of saving five others. Data analysis was performed based on frequency, averages and ANOVAs using SPSS statistical software version 16. The analysis indicated completely different responses to these two situations: in the first situation most respondents (62.3%) considered the act of killing the one person unethical, while in the second situation the majority of respondents (60.6%) considered the act that would result in the one person getting killed as ethical. The findings of the present paper highlighted the role of intention in passing moral judgments and provided empirical evidence in support of the doctrine of double effect. This research also demonstrated that the attitude of theorists about the role of intention in moral judgments is consistent with the moral sense of ordinary people.
