Utilitarianism

If I was in the same position as Baby Theresa’s parents, I would agree to donate my child’s organs as well. Baby Theresa did not have any use for her organs and many infants could have used them. It would be selfish of me to decide not to donate the organs and let them go to waste. Many would argue that taking Baby Theresa’s organs is wrong even though she would die soon. In my opinion I feel the exact opposite of those people. Baby Theresa was going to die soon and it does not make any sense to let her organs deteriorate and another child dies because doctors decided not to take the organs from a dying infant who wouldn’t have any use for the organs. Some people may say the doctors made a good decision because they did not kill to save, but I disagree.

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

From the time Anna was born, whenever Kate fell ill and needed a donor, Kate and Anna’s parents did not hesitate to use Anna’s body without asking her. Parents should not harm one child to save another. Anna decides to go to a lawyer and sue her parents for the rights of her own body. The lawyer makes an ethical decision to be a

Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that pivots around the belief that morality should be judged by consequence and the way in which an action can be deemed moral or immoral, depends upon the number to which it brings the greatest happiness. A decision can be defined as ethically correct under the theory of Utilitarianism if the moral choice provides the 'greatest good for the greatest number of people', proving that at the core of Utilitarianism are the ideals of pleasure and consequence. Although Utilitarianism provides a useful, simplistic way for making moral decisions,

The three principles of utilitarianism are “1. All ‘pleasures’ or benefits are not equal, 2. The system presumes that one can predict the consequences of one’s actions, and 3. There is little concern for individual rights” (Pollock,

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory with the rule, “act in such a way as to maximize the expected satisfaction of interests in the world, equally considered.” We try to act in such a way that considers everyone’s pains and pleasures. With this in mind, we have to discover what truly makes others happy. We should not ignore those that are affected by our behavior.

In the ethical dilemma of Karen Capato and her posthumous conception twins born 18 months after her husband’s death, lives changing ethical questions are considered in the decision to award social

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,

In terms of the utilitarian moral theory, utilitarian moral theory considers human actions as being morally good if the end result or effect of the action is good regardless of whether or not the “means” of getting to the respective end result or effect of an action was good.

Due to this belief, if any action results in the death of a child-no matter the intention-then the action would be wrong. From Singer’s utilitarian viewpoint, if we’re going to condemn Bob for not saving the child, then how can we not condemn those who have the wealth and choose to not donate? Singer brings in Peter Unger’s information from his book Living High and Letting Die, to also help get his point across. Singer points out that Unger has done the research and shown us that it takes roughly $200 to “help a sickly two-year-old transform into a healthy six-year-old.” (Singer 232)

A remarkable women by the name of Judith Jarvis Thomson gives us arguments we should consider when determining if abortion is morally permissible. In her article ‘A defense of abortion’ Thomson supports the fact that abortion in some cases it is morally permissible to have an abortion, even if the premise that fetuses are considered persons from the moment of conception is accepted (Cahn, 2014). Thomson uses a though experiment to contend that the most common disagreement contrary to abortion is that every person has a right to life. In Thomson’s violinist analogy suppose you find yourself in bed with a violinist.

In The Giver, new children that are twins, or that are born unhealthy, are sent to elsewhere. When twins are born into the community, the one that weighs less is disposed of. "Well, they can't have two identical people around! Think how confusing it would be!" (pg.3). In the US babies are under life support is they are unhealthy. In a way this is not humane because the doctors are keeping the parents hopes up and the baby would have a very hard life or not live past a year. The decision about the child’s life should be up to the parents. The decision to keep the baby on life support is theirs to make. Parents usually keep both of their twins. This is humane because if they are both healthy and the parents can support them, then they should be able to take

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

Thus, from a Kantian standpoint, it is wrong to kill Theresa and take her organs to save others because then they would be using her merely as a means to other infants’ ends. However, to play devils advocate, “using a person” typically means you are violating their autonomy- their right to live and decide for themselves according to their own desires and values. With that being said, Baby Theresa was not autonomous because she had no consciousness, she had no ability to ever decide what was in her best interest and desire. So, technically, the Judge of the circuit court was not respecting the parents’ dignity of wanting to donate Theresa's organs.