John Steinbeck's Arguments Against Euthanasia

“But Curley’s gonna want to shoot ‘im” (Steinbeck 97), said George to Candy. That there? Just an argument between Curley shooting Lennie. Ill explain later, but this is where George is thinking about what he's going to have to do to Lennie, you see Curley is going to want to slowly kill Lennie for killing his wife. But George kills Lennie quick and easy.

Once Curley finds out about his wife's death he angerly promises the guys that he's going to kill Lennie, saying, "I'm gonna get him. I'm going for my shotgun. I'll kill the big son-of-a-bitch myself. I'll shoot 'im in the guts"(Steinbeck 96). If George wouldn't have stepped in, Curley was going to make sure Lennie died as painfully as possible for the death of his wife.

Euthanasia should be permitted everywhere around the world because all individuals have the right to determine their future either by choosing death or the right to live. For instance, in the novel Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck the companionship of Candy and his dog is very strong as they stay together all day long. Candy’s dog has become very old and weak in which he is forced to give up his life since he was no use. According to the text, “He ain’t no good to you, Candy. An’ he ain’t no good to himself.

He ran furiously out of the barn.” (Steinbeck 96) This quote shows the anger that Curley had towards Lennie, proving that if given the chance, he would have killed Lennie. George taking Lennie’s life allowed him to die with someone who he loves and trusts, not to be killed by someone who has nothing but hatred for him. George’s actions were not to hurt Lennie, but of an act of love and care for Lennie.

George does not want Lennie to die, but he knows he will either way, and Curley’s wrath would be a much more agonizing way for him to go than a quick painless shot to the head in a nice location with his best friend. Before leaving to shoot Lennie, George confesses to Candy that Lennie’s optimism about the ranch dream had convinced him that it was possible too. Steinbeck describes, “‘He pulled the trigger… Lennie jarred, and then settled slowly forward to the sand, and he lay without quivering,’” (Steinbeck 106).

George would protect Lennie at all costs even from himself. After Lennie kills a young woman, George decides it is better for Lennie to be dead rather than to be tortured and kept in a cell or a mental asylum. The decision of killing Lennie hit George like a train, but he knew it was something that was in Lennie’s own good. Knowing he could have an easier life without Lennie, George still kept him around because he needed George and George needed Lennie. George tells Slim “Course Lennie’s a God damn nuisance most of the time, but you get used to goin’ around with a guy an’ you can’t get rid of him.”

It does not directly state that George is doing this in order to end Lennies suffering like with Candy’s dog, it is implied that George shoots Lennie to end his suffering and to make his death

It was Georges responsibility to take care of Lennie. Aunt Clara asked George to watch after Lennie and he did for awhile but when Lennie needed him the most, he was not there for him. Why would anyone want to kill their best

(Foot, p.100) She further justifies this argument by stating that as long as we put into consideration the interests of the person involved and only the benefits of that person that euthanasia can morally acknowledge. I believe that it

He begins with comparing pro-life and pro-choice arguments, commenting that they are largely similar and have comparable issues. Marquis points out many fallacies both parties fall subject to, such as Feinberg and Quinlan. He also accuses them of making accidental generalizations. A few pages in, Marquis begins his own analysis on these arguments.

If George didn’t kill Lennie, then he would have to die in a suffering way. Meaning, Lennie dying in the hands of Curley would be suffering. Since George accidentally killed Curley's wife there was no other way to save him. Even if both of them do escape, Lennie would never safe and both of them would still be hunted down. Lennie would have to die either way and George loved Lennie too much to let him die within the hands of Curley.

In the novella, Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, George’s decision to kill Lennie at the end of the novel was justified. George and Lennie were best friends, and have been since they were little. They got ran out of Weed(the old farm they used to work at) for harassing a girl and not letting her go. He was just scared from her screaming and kicking. He didn’t mean to harm, or scare her.

George killing Lennie and if it was justified or condemned is a very controversial discussion and could go either way. So think about these factors and ask yourself the question if what George did was justified or

Killing another seems very unjustifiable, which might be the case but when someone takes another 's life and sent to prison, death row or capital punishment is needed to put that person were they belong. People like that deserve to die because of their mistake of killing another and it deters other people to not kill others, showing them what would happen. In the case of Capital Punishment, Hunting for Sport, or George and Lennie, killing is a justifiable act. In the case of capital punishment killing is justified and needs to be done. For example, “Some crimes are so inherently evil they demand strict penalties up to and including death”(McClatchy).

George’s decision to kill Lennie was ultimately for his benefit. “The hand shook violently, but his (George) face set and his hand steadied. He pulled the trigger” (Steinbeck 106). The quote which states how Lennie dies also shows that George was nervous and hesitant in killing Lennie. Scarseth explains in the article, “Friendship.