Utilitarianism: The Case Of Baby Wingrove

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

To further commend her argument, Satel analyzed the short term amd long term risks an organ donor faces and to a reasonably fact, “The truth is that a normal person can get along perfectly well with one kidney. The risk a donor runs is that his single functioning kidney will become deceased or injured and he’ll need a transplant himself—a highly unlikely event” (Satel 451).

From the time Anna was born, whenever Kate fell ill and needed a donor, Kate and Anna’s parents did not hesitate to use Anna’s body without asking her. Parents should not harm one child to save another. Anna decides to go to a lawyer and sue her parents for the rights of her own body. The lawyer makes an ethical decision to be a

A utilitarian would suggest to Kant that his decision to go through the organ donation process can be seen as a universal maxim because any rational individual would want to save lives or atleast prolong it. By prolonging life we are maximizing our greatest good. In order to maximize the greatest good a Utilitarian would not only consider live adult organ donors but also from the recently deceased. Taking organs from the recently deceased not only saves lives but it would save time and money for the doctors becoming transplantation.

In this paper I will explain how Act Utilitarianism, pure Rule Utilitarianism, and pseudo-Rule Utilitarianism would differ in their reasoning regarding the case of Al and Betty. With each method of reasoning, I evaluate the situation without background or moral assumptions of each character, and then separately with the assumption that while Al was away Betty became chronically ill and has one day left to live.

Kant was a deontological thinker and according to his theory of the Categorical Imperative, one must find a maxim in respect to abortion which they could universalize in order to discover what to do when faced with unwanted pregnancy. He doesn’t tackle this problem but he could have argued that abortion is immoral in all circumstances as he strongly believed that human life was of infinite value and that it should be protected. Furthermore, he also believed that one of the universal laws was ‘do not murder.’ Having an abortion would break this universal law and end a valuable life. However, he might also have argued that all people should have the right to determine what happens to their own body. In this case, a universal maxim might permit abortion on the

Without Hannah or her guardian consent (in case she is not in condition of making any decision) I will not donate her organs. In addition, I would disclose all the information regarding the treatment to Hannah or her guardian.

Firstly, by looking at the first patient, whether she gets a kidney from her father or a “cadaver kidney” , there will be no difference because she needs a kidney nonetheless. The second patient however, cannot agree to give his kidney away because one of the main reasons is that he’s scared and lacks “the courage to make this donation”9. So right at this point, it can be seen that it would be better if the father didn’t give his kidney away because it wouldn’t cause him any happiness, whereas the daughter has two options to gIn everyday life, whether on a personal base or on a professional base, difficult scenarios, or also known as moral dilemmas, are present. Depending on whom the person is or what their belief and value systems are,

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

Kant’s ethical theory regarding the immorality of abortion highlights that every individual is endowed with some sense of dignity and respect. Based on Kant’s theory, all human behaviors as well as actions are done simply because are considered the right and appropriate things to be done. Additionally, people’s behaviors and actions are weight in terms of their moral appropriateness instead of any other terms or grounds. Kant would assert that the act of abortion is definitely immoral considering the fact that killing another person is illegal and thus

In the case of Ashley, the nine years old girl whom her parents and Ethics committee at Searle children's hospital both approved to be treated with hormones so she will not grow physically because she has a severe mental illness, Prof.Singer and Mr. Kant ideas in ethics couldn't be more different and contradict to a approach the ethics of the operation to Ashley in the act it self versus the consequences, human dignity, and the role of the happiness. First, Mr. Kant would say this act is immoral even its bring more utility as a consequence. Mr. Kant ethics are based on duty, therefore it's the duty of the parents to take care Ashley no matter what! (categorical imperial) this rule never changes (all times, all places, all people.)

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

Patrick murders Corwin Earlie who ill-treated the child, and Patrick knows that by doing so, he breaks the law. This begs the question, whether his act remains in tandem with Kant’s thought that a moral act remains without condition, right for any person in similar circumstances. In this situation, the answer would be yes, since the man killed the child, and allowing him to live is an injustice to the child and the family. However, there is a question of the moral value, whether killing the man is right. In fact, it leads to an atrocious experience of two individuals killed in the same case, which is not ethically right. For Patrick, he thinks that the same way that the man killed the child, he also deserve