Dilemmas of Moral: Kants theory - Assignment Example

Paraphrasing al affiliation The personalist considers utilitarianism as self-defeating since its ethics considers the killing of one person to offer the greater population the best outcome as permissible. Colosi states, “Since utilitarian ethics permits the killing and desertion of individual persons to attain its stated goal of reducing general suffering, it has actually condemned itself to failure from the inception.” In the article, the author contends that the link between large-scale killing and mercy killing can be demonstrated and follows through the historical authorization of euthanasia. The Nazis practiced euthanasia causing multiple deaths. These events support the personalist perception that utilitarianism is self-defeating. Personalists feel that the lives of people are irreplaceable and that killing either one or masses of people is ethically wrong. According to Colosi, permitting the murder of any person strips the only basis that one could oppose mass killing from the equation. He adds that only someone, who understands this, can sincerely bring about a civilization of love (Colosi). 2. John Paul II and the personalist provide some reasons for the existence of suffering. First, they contend that suffering exist for two reasons; faith and the understandable reason. Faith teaches that suffering is a result of a mixture of demons and original sin. The understandable reason implies that any person, who has good will, should understand this concept. The fact that there is no enough love among humans is sufficient to cause suffering. The latter reason for suffering is perhaps the most precise and explains Pope John Paul II’s statement that “suffering is present in so as to unleash love” Colosi. 3. According to Jon Paul II and the personalist, one should not be a means to an end, implying that we should never look at a person as a mere end regardless of how great the achievement is including love or happiness. John Paul II believes that suffering leads to makes love to flourish. He points out that the love of a suffering person towards whoever helps him through the tough times grows. The point in our reading, that the thriving of love is some sort of side effect, is essential as if one held that the eventual meaning of suffering was its capacity to cause love to flourish, then it appears that one comes to near to minimizing persons in their anguish to a mere means to the attainment of other ends, and also to the perception that love largely depends on the presence of evil (Colosi). HCE Chapter 9 pages 245-277 4. The utilitarianism video shows that Bentham believed that actions should be judged in line with their consequences. Instead of believing in right or wrong, Bentham contended that the amount of pleasure that comes out of an action should be the main principle guiding people’s actions. I believe that, compared to Bentham, Mills version is more honest and accurate since Bentham did not want to follow any laws or codes, but he based decisions and actions on the amount of pleasure derived from them. It is not practical live according to Bentham’s principle as such practices would lead to chaos. Mills version is more logical and his ideas are more realistic than Bentham’s, and in today’s society, people base decisions on outcomes that are good for the majority. These differences have a direct impact on healthcare ethics as myriad ethical decisions consider what is best for most people and not just an individual. In the real sense, healthcare presents as a business. Some of the decisions in the healthcare sector are based on financial or political outcomes, and not on individuals. Although Mill’s view of utilitarianism bases decisions on the greater good of the majority, his views also factor in finances. The views of Bentham on pleasure and pain can apply in health care ethics; patients should experience the least amount of pain. 5. A statement in our text reads, “Advances in medicine cannot take place without the involvement of humans in research” (Panicola, 2011). I approve the truthfulness of this statement, that it is necessary to make tests on human beings. However, the tests have to be done in a manner that is safe and in strict guidelines that uphold the respect and dignity of human beings. The text also states that physicians conduct research on students all the time by prescribing medications to patients. This assertion is also true, but the medications have to undergo proper research prior to administration. I believe that the guidelines put in place by the IRB assure the public that research on humans takes place with the utmost respect and minimal risks. Paul Gelsinger presents a question on moral dilemmas at the beginning of the chapter. 6. The ‘Moral Dilemmas’ video presents an intricate dilemma, that we can only guess the quantity of suffering and quality of life that babies will have. The notion places parents in a challenging ethical dilemma. The theories that we have looked at in this class dwell on alleviating pain and suffering in people’s lives. Further, Catholic Church teaches that people have a duty to preserve life and to glorify God in their duties. On the other hand, the Deontology Theory states that some actions are right in themselves and people should follow them at all times (Panicola, Belde, Slosar, Repenshek, 2011, p.27). DTs follow specified principles and laws. At times, laws and principles conflict with each other, as is the case in the above situation. Consequentialist center on the consequences of the actions of people and not on the action, as long as the action glorifies God. “In contrast to DTs, consequentialists consider the ends as a means to justify the means” (Panicola, Belde, Slosar, Repenshek, 2011, p.29). Virtue theory describes how we ought to live and relate to other people. We are to assess the dilemma at hand and apply the best theory, which is a challenging. I will use the VBD in making to organize my thoughts. Gathering all the important factual information is the first step. The couple in the video gave birth to twin boys. The twins, born at 26 weeks, had difficulties, but one is responding well to treatment while the other is experiencing problems. Michael, the twin experiencing problems responding to treatment, has two bilateral brain hemorrhages. The video shows doctors doing everything in their domain to treat the twins. The doctor in this case study has a high success rate, half of the children survive, 85% are normal, 67% have small handicap, and only 6% to 8% suffer from severe disability. Baby Michael’s response to treatment is not good, and the parents are now in a dilemma. They are wondering whether to continue aggressively with treatment or to let him die comfortably. The ethical issue in this case is whether to stop treatment and let the baby die or not. Continuing with treatment may cause the baby to experience abnormal pain and suffering. Aggressive treatment may make the baby handicapped. Peoples decisions can be based on the outcome of eventual human flourishing. If we base decisions on Kant’s theory, we would look at Michael as an individual and not consider the needs of the parents in the decision. It would not matter whether or not the parents think that the child would be handicapped if they stop aggressive treatment. The parents may decide to continue with treatment to avoid guilt in the future. Kant’s theory inquires, “How would one like to be treated in such a situation. Would one want others to make decisions on their behalf?” If we apply the utilitarian approach, we would look at the number of people who would benefit in order to make the final decision. According to the Aristotle, who is the founder of the virtue theory, the quality of human life is measured by ability to achieve happiness, which requires functioning. If allowed to live, baby Michael may not be able to attain ultimate flourishing as he may not be able to function. Michael’s virtues at stake are human dignity and autonomy. The parents’ virtues at stake are human dignity, compassion, courage, and respect. The next step is brainstorming the possible options. The parents can decide to continue aggressive treatment on baby Michael, which would take great courage considering the fact that the outcome is uncertain. In the video, it emerged that there were no variations in the brain scan even after suffering two hemorrhages in the brain. The parents decide to offer comfort to the patient meaning that they stop aggressive treatment and let the baby die without pain. This took a lot of courage and compassion for the baby. In this scenario, the best theory, to apply, is the Kant’s theory. Put in the scenario, I would look at baby Michael as an individual, although stopping treatment would be hard for me. I would not want baby Michael to go through so much pain because of my wants for it to live. Moreover, I would not be happy if the baby undergoes painful and aggressive treatments that do not promise good outcomes. My conclusion is, based on the facts and options at hand, the solution, that is in the best interest for Michael, is to let him have comfortable time by not performing any aggressive treatments aimed at prolonging his life. Read More