Utalitarian vs Deontological Thinking Using Judith Jarvis Thompson´s Thought Experiment

A controversial human rights issue in modern society is the right to die, an issue that has much to do with the way that human beings relate to society at large, the notion that a man has ownership of their own body, and the obligations set forth in the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics. Physician assisted suicide, or the right to die as those in the pro-assisted suicide movement call it, divides two very different kinds of people into two camps. One’s opinion on the subject is entirely related to one’s core values. Whether one values the individual or whether one places more emphasis on the will of the majority has a great impact on one’s beliefs concerning the issue of the right to die. In this essay, I will prove

“Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes one’s duty to do a particular action just because the action, itself, is inherently right and not through any other sorts of calculations – such as the consequences of the action” (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). In many aspects deontology is contrasted with utilitarianism. Deontology is based upon principle and does not calculate the consequences (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). Deontology attracts those seeking a stronger moral attraction because it refers to commanding rather than commending and commanding is a stronger structure (Boylan, 2009, p. 172). The

In the context of research, ethics is defined as the systems of moral principles that guide human action (1). Ethics is the reflection of the societies ideals of what is right and wrong. It is required in order for research to be valid and published for an ethics committee to evaluate the proposed research question, design and implementations and provide approval in order for a research project to be considered ethical.

When faced with adversity and difficult dilemmas, people have different ways to figure out what to do; some people make pros and cons lists while other people just go with their gut. Ethical theories like utilitarianism and deontology, can aid people in making these difficult choices. Utilitarianism focuses on the results of your actions, rather than the intent behind them, as the goal of the theory is the create the greatest good for the greatest amount people. On the other hand, deontology follows a strict moral code concentrating on the right or moral action rather than the results it yields. While utilitarianism and deontology focus on different aspects of decision making, the effect and the intent respectively, they often yield the same result; more often than not the more ethical decision leads to the greater result. These ethical theories are both used in Snow Falling on Cedars by David Gunderson where they both agree on the topics, yielding the same results.

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

Physician-assisted suicide may change the perception of illness, disease, and pain. Because of this, physicians, patients, and family members may give up on recovery early (Westefeld, et al., 239). In contrast of cooperating in the death of a patient, people will seek to avoid it. This avoidance and denial of death may cause physicians to abandon their patients. This problem would be worsened by legalizing physician-assisted suicide because it would encourage the use of physician-assisted suicide when their disease worsened (Shannon & Kockler, 190). Legalizing physician-assisted suicide would also change the perspective the patient has about him or herself. The moral question of suicide is whether humans should have this responsibility over their own lives. Many argue that this act defies human dignity and that physician-assisted suicide exceeds human responsibility. Also, many people would assume sympathy in this situation, but some people may judge the patient for their use of physician-assisted suicide because it is using suicide to relieve pain (Shannon & Kockler, 191).

Does human life have intrinsic value? When considering the value of human life, I think it is very important to understand that the value of life is inherent and cannot be determined by how it is used. Due to this, we cannot use the value of life as a standard to judge upon because the value of human life is equally intrinsic. Therefore, the organ’s value must be highly considered as well as preserving the greatest amount of life. In this paper I will contend that the God Squad’s system is flawed because it fails to consider how the resource could be used most effectively through establishing instrumental value of human life. I will also argue that the essential value should be the prosperity of the organ and patient in order to ensure the organ is not wasted. Therefore, I propose that Rhonda Ryder should be put on the list.

When we think about issues that are surrounded by a lot of debate in bioethics we think about topics such as Abortion, Stem Cell Research, Genetic Enhancement, Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide. Each of these debates comes with its own ethical issues and discussion about the permissibility or impermissibility of each topic. Every one of these topics is complex and deserves careful consideration when trying to determine what is right ethically and which principles in ethics need to be considered more than others. The topic of interest in this paper is Physician-Assisted Suicide and the principles that inform our discussion of PAS and how to make sense of the arguments surrounding PAS. Individuals who are found to be competent and

In addition, ethical values and morals must be appropriately given importance and significance in the health care, providing practice to ensure that the welfare and health of the patients would be given priority, thus, protection and promoting the moral aspect of the practice. As such, this essay aims to choose whether a deontological or utilitarian viewpoint would be essential for a particular situation of reality important of a health care provider. In this regard, both concepts would be briefly distinguished, to be able to make a choice, as being applicable to the situation at hand. Subsequently, principles and alternative

Deontological theories apply the principle of the fulfilment of the moral duties or obligations (Howarth, 1995). This theoretical view maintains that decisions should not be based on the promise of a better end state but should rather play a vital role in meeting our moral obligations. The theory of situational ethics maintains that every moral action is unique and as a result calls for the making of unique ethical decisions. Going by this theory, one could reason that the termination of human life is a moral issue which requires unique ethical decisions aimed at safeguarding life. This reasoning is against the practice of Physician Assisted Suicide because decisions to terminate life are not moral. Every action that must be taken must be

Thanks to modern developments in medical technology, people in advanced countries today live longer and stay healthy until they are relatively older. The technology, however, also allows some people to hasten their death and make it relatively pain-free. As a result, many patients suffering from unbearable pain of certain incurable illnesses from time to time ask their physicians to help them commit suicide. Any physician who is asked to do this is under an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, the physician is asked to help relieve one from pain and suffering. On the other hand, by helping a patient commit suicide the physician is assisting someone to commit murder even if it is the case of self-murder. This ethical case known as Physician-Assisted Suicide (PAS) is a controversial topic in the United States and elsewhere. Since it is an ethical issue, one way of resolving the dilemma is to evaluate the morality of PAS from the perspective of classical and other ethical theories. Among these are utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, relativism, emotivism, and ethical egoism. With the exception of deontology, any of these theories can be used to justify PAS easily. Deontology is the only view that places strong moral limitations on the application of PAS. Deontology's most prominent proponent Immanuel Kant strongly opposed suicide. However, the core principles of deontology may justify physician-assisted suicide

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.

John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism by stating how a standardized system in which people’s actions may be judged to differentiate between right and wrong has been minimal in progress. He expresses the misconception with the way utility is understood by the general populous and other philosophers. The struggle to lay the foundations in what constitutes as right and wrong dates longer back than 2000 years ago.

Throughout life, individuals are often faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas which can be difficult to assess given the factors of the situation and consequences, based on what is right and wrong. In this paper I will be assessing the Trolley Problem in relation to Utilitarianism and Deontology and will conclude which theory is the best way to behave given the situation. In the first paragraph, I will begin by discussing the Trolley Problem followed by the next paragraph’s which will explaining how Utilitarianism and Deontology would approach the situation. Furthermore, I will be discussing which theory I believe is right in regards to the best way to behaving in society, given the possible outcomes of the problem. Since the moral issue of killing and letting die are close in hand, Deontology is the only explainable way to behave because this theory approaches all situations in regard to what is fair and acceptable for all, while Utilitarianism takes an approach that degrades humanity and differs from person to person.

Imagine you are injured or sick and have sought a doctor’s help. Although you trusted your doctor, something, something seemingly very in control of the doctor, went wrong. You are angry and confused, but also think of the commonality of medical malpractice. So, why do doctors, who are supposed to help, harm? Though many flaws influence it, malpractice can be, and often is unintentional. Most doctors aren’t trained to harm their patients. Inexperience and lack of medical discovery led to unintentional suffering of the patient. Personal flaws, like lack of willingness to abandon previous medical methods and shortcomings in communication also harm patients. Further reasons why doctors harm are socio-medical understandings that breed hate, prejudices stemming from a society’s belief about certain people, such as the medical practice under the Nazi regime. Additionally, displayed in the case of Ignác Semmelweis, judgement of one to oneself can be detrimental to any progress one’s ideas could make. We will examine these concepts through Jerome Groopman’s “Flesh-and-Blood Decision Making”, Sherwin Nuland’s The Doctors’ Plague and Barbara Bachrach’s “In the Name of Public Health”. Those who practice medicine are, unfortunately, unfree from the imperfections that plague all of humanity. Through these intimate and varied faults, doctors do harm.