Principlissm And Utilitarianism

Ethics is a strongly culturally linked area of philosophy interrelated with what is considered acceptable human conduct. There are two branches of ethics; medical ethics and bioethics. The moral conduct and principles which govern practices of medical and health professionals falls under medical ethics, whereas in biomedicine and the health sciences theorised developments in the study of social and moral issues is considered bioethics(1). There are two philosophical principles within the conduction of health care research these are deontology and utilitarianism. Deontology is an approach to ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (2). Utilitarianism states that the most benefit

Principlism is a common practical approach to any bioethical dilemmas in medicine. According to Lewis Vaughn, there are five principles in Principlism that can provide a framework for reasoning through moral medical issues, which include autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, utility, and justice. Autonomy refers to the capacity of a person for making decisions for his/her own life. Nonmaleficence refers to doing absolutely no harm to others in any cases. Beneficence defines the right action to do is to bring good to others. Utility refers to always balancing out the harm by the good of an action. Justice refers to everyone should get an equal and fair treatment. The aforementioned five principles are supposed to provide some general guidelines for anyone who is

A rights ethicist would argue the moral questions that it is the duty of physician's to "do no harm…and those rules are justified by reference to a general conception of personal and social welfare." The rights that are weighed desire to balance the risks to be taken against the possible good that could be attained through

Decision making in the setting of healthcare is influenced by ethical, legal and professional frameworks that provide standards of conduct by appealing to ethical principles, moral rights and virtues (Tonti-Filippini, 2011). These principles give credibility to decision making in healthcare with International and National frameworks (Tonti-Filippini, 2011). Examples include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Code of Professional Conduct, the Australian Charter of Heath and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Murray, 2009).

To support my stand, I will use the Principlism approach articulated by Beauchamp and Childress (B&C) in their textbook principles of biomedical ethics (Beauchamp & Childress, 2013). B & C thoroughly develop and advocate for four principles that lie at the core of moral reasoning in health care: respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice. The reason behind selecting this approach is because these Principles derived from the “common morality” and thus, they are universally binding in all healthcare settings everywhere. The principles are binding regardless of the ethical theory one adhere to or believe in, because everybody recognizes the importance and the strength of the common morality. Consequently, the Principlism approach provides a means for proceeding with ethical analysis even when persons disagree in theoretical matters.

(6)You should not kill an innocent (friendless but healthy) person EVEN IF by doing so (and giving his organs to several others) you could increase net happiness.

Utilitarianism is a doctrine that revolves around two concepts: happiness and consequentialism. It follows the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which is, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 239). Utilitarianists’ most vast idea is creating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and to end pain and suffering with this principle by using Utilitarian Calculus. In Utilitarian Calculus, one would analyze the situation and as long as the action has a greater positive effect (more happiness) overall than a negative effect (pain and suffering) then the act is moral. Singer had many arguments when it comes to animal rights and speciesism.

We often speak of “utilitarian” solutions in a negative manner, but it’s very probable that every human being will have to make a “utilitarian” decision at least once in their lifetime. Although I don’t agree with most “utilitarian” point of views, in some cases utilitarianism is a demanding moral side that brings benefit for the sake of the majority. In this case, I give you a matter of life and death.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it

In my ethics review I will be talking about and comparing two ethical theories Rights theory and Utilitarianism, I will also be stating which ethical theory I prefer and why. After this I will discuss ethical issues around technology.

The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.

There are four basic ethical and bioethical principles that have a strong influence in the practice of medicine, predominantly medicine that deals with those who are dying. The first is beneficence, which directs the physician and health care worker to take positive actions, specifically by restoring health and relieving suffering (Bongard et al., 2008). Then there is nonmaleficence. Goldman and Schafer (2012) add that nonmaleficence is the idea that people should not be harmed or injured knowingly. The third ethical principle is autonomy,

There are four commonly accepted principles of bioethics. The first is the principle of respect for autonomy. Respect for autonomy is a respect for the client to make informed and intentional decisions, provided that the client is judged to be capable of doing so. This principle is the base for the practice of informed consent as well as the right to accept or refuse treatment. The client is to be able to make a rational, informed decision, without any external factors influencing any decisions. This principle may cause what the health care professional perceives to be harm, but to the client, like a muslim client refusing to have a xenotransplantation from a pig, accepting the treatment would cause him to suffer

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.

Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.