Final answer:
True, utilitarians would typically support voluntary euthanasia when pain outweighs the pleasure in life, consonant with maximizing happiness for the greatest number.
Step-by-step explanation:
Utilitarians would generally support voluntary euthanasia, especially when the pain in a person's life outweighs the pleasure they derive from living. This view is consistent with the utilitarian principle of seeking the greatest happiness for the largest number of people. Utilitarian philosophers, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, hold that the morality of an action is determined by the balance of pleasure over pain that it produces. Also, the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer argues that euthanasia is morally permissible when a person's life is no longer worth living due to a lack of quality, and that helping someone avoid unnecessary pain of a prolonged death is moral. However, Singer strongly opposes involuntary euthanasia, which is done without patient consent and against their interests.
Moral debates around euthanasia also consider the ethics of active versus passive euthanasia, the role of physicians, and the potential slippery slope implications if euthanasia is widely practiced. Cost-benefit analyses in utilitarianism can extend to medical resources, such as respirators, with a focus on using resources where they will lead to the best overall outcomes. Critiques of utilitarianism, such as concerns about act utilitarianism, highlight potential issues where actions that maximize happiness can conflict with our sense of right conduct.
In summary, true would presumably be the correct answer considering the utilitarian ethos regarding maximization of happiness and minimization of suffering.