Is utilitarian-style ethics an inferior type of ethics?

Hi.

I found this article from 2014, so it's somewhat old now:

http://www.science20.com/news_articl...hically-137917

But the finding is what I'm curious about - it is discussing the level of support for euthanasia and its correlation to people's emotional reasoning versus rationalistic reasoning. In particular, it says that apparently, according to the finding, those with a higher level of "reflexive emotion" would be more likely to support euthanasia, while those with higher level of "empathy" would be less likely, saying that in the case of the latter,

Quote:

The researchers found that people judged to be more compassionate and empathetic by their peers – for instance better listeners - tended to oppose utilitarian choices such as sacrificing one to save the many or euthanasia. The findings suggest that more compassionate people have more of a sense of the sanctity of human life. "The idea that life is sacred may be hard for the reductive, analytic mind to grasp, but it is hardly a primitive or reflexive sentiment" Jack said.

. And I wonder about this. It seems that many would suggest that "better listening", "empathy", and so forth are actually greater morality and their opposites are generally things we would consider as immoral or of inferior moral quality or moral character. Thus this finding suggests that to support euthanasia is an attitude that would belie/is associated with inferior moral character. And it suggests that this "non-reductive" view of opposing euthanasia is "not primitive", suggesting that the other - utilitarianism - is more primitive and inferior.

But the thing is I don't get this. Why is it more primitive thinking to not want the other to suffer? If you can empathize, you can understand better the pain the person who wants to be euthanized might be going through, so why would you then come to the conclusion you should choose for them to suffer longer by not euthanizing? Why is it "more empathetic" to make human life "sacred" in such a way that it's okay to continue a life that is nothing but suffering? And furthermore why is it "analytic" - which they talk about before as "cold" - to want to stop the individual from suffering? Namely,

Quote:

"There's a tension between cold hard reasoning—what's called analytic reasoning— and another type of reasoning important to emotions, self-regulation and social insight," Jack explained. "The second type of reasoning isn't characterized by being caught up in reflexive and primitive emotions, as Greene suggests. It's critically important to understanding and appreciating the experiential point of view of others."

Since this appears to be real science, should we take it for what it says and oppose euthanasia for supporting it has been revealed to be an objectively inferior form of morality given the usual standards many hold for defining the constituents of moral character? And it clearly sounds like the latter form of reasoning is much superior to the former at making nuanced and effective moral decisions, of exactly the type that we need to be making more of for the human species to survive and prosper.

And the way I've always understood it was that euthanasia was supposed to be something that the person with the ailment is supposed to be able to choose as an option, not that it is to be compulsed outside by a doctor. Another thing I'd wonder about though is what would happen if you did a similar study regarding "passive" euthanasia which is instead of actually killing the person, you simply put a limit down as to how long you're going to prolong their life in misery and suffering before letting "nature take its course" and the disease terminate their life for them? (As I've thought one possible alternative to euthanasia is simply to put the person in a medical coma until the disease ends their life.) As this is a somewhat different action - instead of making a choice to actively terminate a life, you're making a choice whether or not to prolong that life, which would seem to amount to a decision to essentially inflict upon the person greater suffering. Why would it be that if you are better able to empathize - to understand their suffering - you'd want to make a choice that would make them suffer more?

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2spvbwa