ETHC 445N Week 4 Discussion & Follow-up; Utilitarianism

Week 4 Discussion: Utilitarianism Initial Post Instructions The principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of decisions. Although it does not get directly said, there is an inverse intention to minimize the undesirable outcome of disaster. Utilitarian decisions are directed toward outcomes-that is, the consequences of decisions. We need to look at results. We first look at the actual results of an action. We judge if it was the best possible result. We can judge the actual results in comparison to other results that reasonably could be said to have been possible. If we do not yet have the actual results of an action, we do not know if it is moral or not. We can talk hypothetically about what might happen, and then what that would show about the morality of an action. However, if we do not know what the action had as its consequences, we cannot yet say if it is moral or not. Initial Post Instructions: For the initial post of this week's discussion respond to one of the following options, and label the beginning of your post indicating either Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3: Option 1: You are a nurse on a floor with only elderly patients. Every day, each patient tells you about how much pain they are in and asks you to help them. They want you to inject them with something to end their lives. If the patients die, the beds on that floor would be freed up for other patients. The hospital is at 100 percent capacity. There is no other hospital for 30 miles. Other patients may be not receiving care due to a lack of free beds. What is the moral thing to do here? Why is that the moral thing to do? What would an utilitarian say is the moral thing to do? Why would they say that? Compare and contrast the utilitarian approach with that of an ethical egoist or social contact theorist Option 2: Anew social media app is offering itself to you for free. If you upload a picture to it, the app will show how you will look at 10 years. John Doe, a friend of yours, says not to use the app as it will then possess your biometric facial data. Jane Doe, another friend of yours, says that she heard the app shares the facial data with a security firm that helps the government detect terrorists at airports. Should you use this app? Why or why not? If John Doe is right, would an utilitarian say it is right to use the app? Why or why not? If Jane Doe is right, would a social contract theorists say it is right to use the app? Consider the role the Fourth Amendment at play here. Option 3: You are a nursing student at the XYZ College. It has a 50 percent acceptance rate (half the applicants do not get in). XYZ is a public college. XYZ has decided to implement an affirmative action policy. The college has few students over the age of 50. To encourage more students of that age, every student 50 or older will receive a bonus point. A student's admission is dependent on having 11 points. One earns points for a GPA above a certain score, ACT/SAT score above a certain number, having a letter of recommendation, etc. XYZ also lacks LGBT students, Muslim, and African-American students and is considering offering a bonus point for any student fitting those categories. What is the key moral conflict for XYZ? What social values should XYZ promote here? What diverse populations are involved here, and what are their interests? Do you think XYZ's social action is the correct solution to lack ofdiversity? Why or why not? Factor the ethics of egoism and utilitarianism into your answer. Hello Class & Professor, Option 1 What is the moral thing to do here? Unfortunately, medical care can be complex and confusing and can touch on many of our important values and ideals. Therefore, I believe that the moral thing to do here is to take care for those who can be saved. I would rather feel bad about making the best of a bad situation rather than being convinced that I have done the right thing. Why is that the moral thing to do? I believe that is the moral thing to do because first come, first served is a morally plausible principle. Saving those who have good survival odds is reinforced by several moral theories. Eight ethicists, despite the unanimity, all agreed that this decision is far from easy and should not be taken lightly, but all agree that those who have a greater rate of survival be priority (Goldhill, 2020). It may not be the ethical thing to do, but it may be necessary as there are no other good options. It’s simply the least bad option. What would a utilitarian say be the moral thing to do? Why would they say that? A utilitarian would say to help those who want to die and free up the space for those who need the care. They would say this because according to the utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue, voluntary death is justifiable when the action leads to the happiness of the individual and society (Metzger, 2016). Which based on this scenario, it would. Patients who are in agony are asking the nurse to help them die and helping those who want to die would free up the beds for other patients. Therefore, the highest principle the nurse would be adhering to when assisting in voluntary death is the greatness happiness principle (Metzger, 2016). Assisting those asking to die would allow for the beds to become available for someone else who wants to live or has better chances on surviving and can further contribute to their society. It is not fair to distribute scarce resources in a way that minimizes lives saved. Ethical egoist An ethical egoist holds the view that if any action increases their own good, then it is right. They cannot help but act in own self-interest, and therefore, such actions are ethical (Ruggiero, 2012). In contrast to saving those who can be saved, they wouldn’t agree, they would say that if the person wants to die, then help them die whether they can be saved or not. If a person wants to or does not want to end their life, this desire is motivated by a need for self-benefit, and therefore would be an ethical action. References: Goldhill, O. (2020). Ethicists agree on who gets treated first when hospitals are overwhelmed by coronavirus. Metzger, J.A. (2016). Humanism, Illness, and Elective Death: A Case Study in Utilitarian Ethics. Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, 24(1), 21-58. Ruggiero, V. R. (2012). Thinking critically about ethical issues. McGraw-Hill. Hello Kristen, First and foremost, thank you for your post! I want to express my condolences for your loss. I also want to add to your post here. You stated that the moral thing to do depends on each individual, which in a way is consistent with what I believe is the moral thing to do as well, save those who can and have a greater chance to survive. Besides having personal experience with such decisions, are there other reasons why you would believe this is the moral thing to do? I state utilitarianism slightly differently, not that I disagree, but the way I understood utilitarianism was that a decision should be made, where right or wrong, but is justifiable when the action leads to the happiness of the individual and society (Metzger, 2016). Based on your scenario, your mother in law could no longer contribute to the overall happiness to society. Which reflects the utilitarian perspective that by keeping a terminally ill patient alive, the money going towards maintaining their life is being wasted, that money could be redirected towards infrastructure or research for a cure (Mooren & Quante, 2020). However, a utilitarian may possibly agree to disagree with your statement about making the choice to cease her pain and maximize everyone’s happiness. Keeping her alive during that time is also a utilitarian perspective wouldn’t you think? At that time you decided to keep her alive, a utilitarian would say you chose so because it is harmful to society to weaken the value of life, and that if there is a possibility of saving her life, regardless of her condition, it should be done for the good of everyone (Mooren & Quante, 2020). Now, that you think back to it, you have a similar perspective but concluded that she should have been allowed to die earlier. Don’t you think that falls more into egoism? Resources: Metzger, J.A. (2016). Humanism, Illness, and Elective Death: A Case Study in Utilitarian Ethics. Essays in the Philosophy of Humanism, 24(1), 21-58. Mooren, N., & Quante, M. (2020). Utilitarianism and Care at the End of Life. Philosophy and Medicine Contemporary European Perspectives on the Ethics of End of Life Care, 37–54.