There are three basic propositions in standard Utilitarianism. Actions are judge

Question

There are three basic propositions in standard Utilitarianism. Actions are judged right and wrong solely on their consequences; that is, nothing else matters except the consequence, and right actions are simply those with the best consequences. To assess consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness and unhappiness caused; that is, there is only one criterion and everything else is irrelevant. In calculating happiness and unhappiness caused, nobody’s happiness counts any more than anybody else’s; that is, everybody’s welfare is equally important and the majority rules. In specific cases where justice and utility are in conflict, it may seem expedient to serve the greater happiness through quick action that overrules consideration for justice. There is a side to happiness that can call for rushed decisions and actions that put decision-makers under the pressure of expediency. Here is a dilemma for our class: You are the elected district attorney. You receive a phone call from a nursing home administrator who was a good friend of yours in college. She has a waiting list of 3,000 people who will die if they don't get into her nursing home facility within the next 3 weeks, and she currently has 400 patients who have asked (or their families have asked on their behalf) for the famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian's (fictitious) sister, Dr. Jill Kevorkian, for assistance in helping them die. The 3,000 people on the waiting list want to live. She (the nursing home administrator) wants to know if you would agree to "look the other way" if she let in Dr. Jill to assist in the suicide of the 400 patients who have requested it, thus allowing at least 400 of the 3,000 on the waiting list in. How would we use Utilitarianism to "solve" this dilemma? What ethics did your friend, the nursing home administrator, use in deciding to call you? What ethics are you using if you just "look the other way" and let it happen?

Explanation / Answer

Utilitarianism is based on happiness and it states the actions are right if it promote happiness and are wrong if it promotes unhappiness. In this case the happiness of the 400 people is in dying and they are unhappy in living with the sufferings from disease. There are other 3000 people who are waiting outside to get accommodated and their happiness is in living. They would die if they are not admitted which cause unhappiness for those patients. Hence in the Utilitarian view, my decision would be to allow the patients to die and the patients who want to live should get an opportunity to get admitted in the hospital. This will promote happiness for all and is the correct decision as per utilitarianism.

My friend nurse called me in order to make a rational decision making. She is a nurse and her happiness is in saving the lives of her patients though they have asked for death permission. But she will be happy if other patients are admitted also. She called me due to this moral dilemma and to take a decision that will bring happiness to all. The ethic behind this is finding a solution that will be good for all.

The ethics used by me is to promote the actions that will bring happiness to the majority. If I do not allow the 400 patients to die, it will bring unhappiness for them as their happiness is in dying and other 400 who lose the opportunity to get admitted and it is not a right act as per utilitarianism. The decision to allow the patients will help to include 400 from the waiting list and it will bring happiness for all those 800 people.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.