Analyzing Kant's Case Summary

is the good will. A good will is good in itself, not just for what it

The first article is entitled “of mice but not men: problems of randomized clinical trials,” is written by Samuel Hellman and Deborah S. Hellman discusses the issues of randomized medical testing and experiments on patients. The article describes the role of the personal physician and how the physician can take an ethical or unethical path of treating his/her patients. The relationship between the patient and physician is greatly emphasized because according to the article trust is very valuable in medicine especially when a patient’s life is at risk. A Kantian and a Utilitarian view of randomized clinical trials are debated but the authors clearly steers towards a Kantian point of view.

There is very little question as to what action a strict deontologist would do in the scenario for this assignment he or she would unequivocally adhere to his or her duty. The more pressing question, of course, revolves around just where that duty lies. For a deontologist, that duty would lie with the job at hand and its responsibilities. As one who took an oath to only program software in accordance to the company that he or she works for which is essentially operating as an extension of the government that wishes the programmer to 'push the button' and destroy millions of innocent lives in World War II it would strongly appear that such an individuals would consider it his or her duty to effectively start World War III.

This includes a disinterested concern for patients and society and goes towards dedication to medical practice and the community of science. In addition, physicians approach patients with a biomedical approach; which is solely based on determining the problem through science and finding a solution that focuses on preserving human life. (Vanwiechen, 2018) A physician must always uphold their values of attaining and preserving human life as it is their duty. Correspondingly, Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” (Smith, 1993).

This temptation happens when the research question, such as a cure for cancer, is extremely important and the answer could save lives. If the investigators cared more about the scientific or medical advancement than the well-being of their participants, they would cross a line that prohibits treating human subjects as a means to an end. When this line is crossed, there is little left to protect patients from a callous disregard of their welfare for the sake of research goals. Informed consent would not matter because of the unbalanced relationship between the knowledge and authority among the researcher and the subject. Approval by an institutional board, although it is important, can be subject to change in its responsiveness to patients’ interests when they conflict with the welfares of the researchers. Going back to Paul’s case, he agrees to enter a clinical trial which was suggested by his oncologist. The study, that Paul has agreed to enter, has claimed that this research team has created a new drug that may be on its way to cure cancer. Obviously to a father and husband, this trial looks very appealing. However, the researchers knowingly form two groups that will compare two treatments. What Paul doesn’t know, is that one of the treatments is better than the other. One group will receive this new drug and the other group will receive a placebo. Comparing this new treatment

Immanuel Kant, a supporter of capital punishment, offered us of the most complicated, if not ambiguous, views on the subject. In fact, he would’ve ironically disagreed with its modern proponents. Those who advocate capital punishment today often do so for utilitarian reasons. For example, the death sentence would protect society by not only preventing a purpertrator from committing the same crime again, it would also deter others by setting an example. Kant would’ve argued the rights of the condemned are being trampled; by using him as an example, we are using him as a means to an end. A rational being, in Kant’s view, is an end in himself, whether criminal or law-abiding

This example deems that killing the one healthy person is morally permissible because it saves five other people, and thus maximizes happiness. However, this judgment severely conflicts with deeply held moral beliefs that it is wrong to kill a healthy person and consequently, this creates a problem for act utilitarians. With regard to Kantianism, Kant believes that moral duty is based on reason. Every rational being must consider the decision procedure for moral reasoning to determine if their action is morally permissible and can be universalized. However, Kant’s decision procedures may lead to conflict. Kant endorses the claim that one must never lie, regardless of the circumstance. As discussed in class, we are tempted to make exceptions to the rule against lying because we think that if we are honest, the consequences will be bad, and if we tell a lie, the consequences will be good. Kant would argue that we can never be certain about what the consequences will be, and for this reason, the best policy is to avoid what we already know is evil – lying. Kant assumes that we would be morally responsible for any bad consequences of lying, but we would not be held accountable for any bad consequences of telling the truth. Consider the following example: Your friend has a baby and asks you if you think that the baby is cute. Your honest opinion is that the baby is ugly. According to Kantianism, you must tell the truth. Kant believes that we would not be responsible for the bad

With the statement, “warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon 's knife or the chemist 's drug” physicians are given the responsibility to step down from their systematic ways of scientific thinking and make decisions on the level of human kind. The modern oath also provides for the necessary address of issues in liability in relation with a physicians judgment. This is predominately done by promoting the uniting of colleagues and defending a physicians right to be unsure in a world of so many unknowns. This acceptance and appreciation is essential for fostering a comradely among physicians that challenges each to think independently, dispute their own peers and still be conducive of making advancements.

The displacement of Syrian’s as a result of war is an issue that is extremely prevalent in today’s society. It can be safely stated that the question of whether or not to allow refugees into our country is an ethical one. There are many that would say that these refugees are a great responsibility and bring with them, undeniable risks. To these people, I would say, that despite the possible dangers, we as humans are naturally altruistic and are presented with undeniable philosophical reasoning regarding the importance of caring for distant others.

Savulescu’s argument also has some flaws in regards to his responses to a few possible objections he talked about. One objection that Savulescu responds to is the objection that genes are pleiotropic meaning they have different effects on different parts of the body (The Ethical Life, 454). The example given was that a gene that prompts depression might also be responsible for heightened creativity and productivity (The Ethical Life, 454). Savulescu 's response to that was that we would have to “limit interventions until our knowledge grows” and we would have to do more“adequate research” before expanding the types of interventions (The Ethical Life, 454). The problem with that is that it requires experimenting and testing on children and embryos which would be treating them as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Kant would agree and say that these children “exist as an end in itself, not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion” (Kant, 96). Savulescu is suggesting research on children and embryos in order to reach the goal of allowing genetic enhancement. He is using them as a means to his end result. This is a major flaw as Kant would argue that treating people as an end is showing them the respect they deserve while treating them as a means is just dealing with them so that they can help to achieve the person’s goal (Shafer-Landau, 174). Therefore, a child should never be treated as a means to an end to help reach a goal for either

Kant's picture argues that our sensory inputs do not contain tags that identify objects as the way you know them. For example different patches of light indicate a tree, but there is no tree tag that you receive with those patches. Kant's picture argues that what we perceive is the world of experiences created by our minds to represent the world in itself. We create those tags based on pure forms of experience.

The Kant’s Categorical Imperative test is defined as In the ethical system of Immanuel Kant, an unconditional moral law that applies to all rational beings and is independent of any personal motive or desire. In my opinion, Caryn’s decision to take the $500 to delete her review off of a travel advice website would pass the test. My reasoning for saying that is because although her experience was horrific her decision was logical because she was reimbursed for the money she lost because of her stay at the hotel which was desirable for her personal motive to receive some type of monetary gift and to be recognized by the company. Unfortunately, it was a honest decision because others wont be aware of the type of horrible customer service this

It is clear from the case study that Alistair knows the contract is unorthodox. The problem he faces is whether he should overlook the bribe or report it to the board. The board of directors expects Alistair to tell the truth and report the bribe because of: his position as Chief Legal Officer, the board has a very strong ethics policy and they are wary of unethical activities.

Engineers are trusted individuals which the public has set high standards for. The public relies on engineers to efficiently, and accurately determine the safety of all products they create. Engineers are required to follow safety procedures in order to ensure the quality of the products they create. However, are these procedures enough to ensure the safety of the public? Or can additional actions be taken in order to improve the safety of a product? If so, to what extent should engineers be required to take matters into their own hands and ensure the safety of products, in return reducing the number of injuries and fatal accidents?

The ethical theory that better explains ethical actions is Mill’s Utilitarianism over Kant’s deontological ethics. I choose to be a Utilitarian because it better fits the person of who I am today. I believe that Mill exemplifies a more reasonable and logically way of reasoning rather than Kant. I am going to defend Utilitarianism through this story of a problem that most likely happens to doctors around the world. Let’s say I am doctor with 4 doses of some very scarce medicine where I am in an emergency situation where I am left with 5 patients. Which all of whom would need the drug to survive. In this case, let’s say one of the patients would need 4 doses to survive. But all the other patients would only need a single dose to survive. I could also assume I know nothing else about these patients. Utilitarianism would tell us to divide up the drug and let the patient that needed all 4 doses to survive just die. Why do you ask? Because saving the 4 lives preserves much more happiness and prevents more suffering than