A CRITIQUE OF PETER SINGER'S UTILITARIAN APPROACH TO EUTHANASIA; A PARADIGM FOR THE SACREDNESS OF HUMAN LIFE

ABSTRACT This research explores Peter Singer’s utilitarian approach to euthanasia, focusing on the ethical challenges arising from his use of both preference and classical utilitarianism. Singer evaluates the moral worth of individuals based on their capacity to form preferences, while simultaneously invoking classical utilitarianism to justify the treatment of sentient beings lacking personhood, such as severely handicapped infants. This dual reliance leads to a central problem: a philosophical inconsistency that undermines the coherence of his ethical justification for non-voluntary euthanasia. Through critical analysis, the study reveals how Singer’s shifting frameworks fail to adequately address the intrinsic value of human life and risk endorsing a utilitarian calculus that overlooks human dignity. In response, this work proposes an alternative ethical framework grounded in the sanctity of life, palliative care, and patient-centered medical ethics. This findings suggest that a more holistic and compassionate model, one that upholds autonomy without resorting to euthanasia, offers a morally sound solution to end-of-life suffering. Thus, the study contributes to ongoing debates by advocating ethical approaches that preserve life like Ubuntu, while providing meaningful relief from pain and distress.