Utilitarianism Discussion

SECOND LEAD DISCUSSION QUESTIONDo you find  that any of the critiques of “Utilitarianism” apply here? Which?  Explain. Be sure to review and incorporate if relevant the critiques  raised in Chapter 8 and those referenced in the assigned videos

he relationship between actions and consequences is a cause-and-effect relationship, but not the kind we associate with the motion of physical objects, such as a row of dominoes tumbling down in predictable response to the falling of the first one. In human affairs the responses are never completely predictable. If Lucy curses Pauline, Pauline might well respond in kind, but then again she might bless Lucy instead. If Clyde strikes Hector, chances are Hector will strike back, but it is possible that he will turn the other cheek. Similarly, some people who grow up in crime-ridden, drug-infested neighborhoods become criminals or drug users, but others remain honest and drug-free.* And though children who have been neglected or abused by their parents often harbor anger and resentment throughout their lives, in some cases, animosity gives way to forgiveness and love.

The main difference between the laws of cause and effect in the physical universe and cause and effect in human affairs is that humans have the capacity to choose how they respond to events. To be sure, natural endowment and social conditioning exert a powerful influence and make some patterns of response more likely than others. (In Chapter 4 we discussed how these forces influence the development of conscience.) But in the vast majority of cases, these forces only diminish, rather than eradicate, one’s freedom to choose. Free will enables people to resist outside influences, defy psychological and sociological axioms, and behave unpredictably.

*For a fascinating and highly readable study that debunks media stereotypes of inner-city neighborhoods, see Mitchell Duneier’s award-winning Slim’s Table: Race, Respectability, and Masculinity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

98

Let’s be clear that free will doesn’t suspend the laws of nature. If a woman jumps out a fiftieth-floor window, she is not likely to get up and walk away, no matter how robust her will to survive. If a man sprinkles his mashed potatoes with cyanide, we can safely bet that he won’t report for work tomorrow. (Chances are, he won’t even make it through dessert!)

DEALING WITH PROBABILITY

The fact that people can and do behave unpredictably makes consideration of consequences more difficult than it might otherwise be. Often as not, we are unable to arrive at certainty but must be content with probability. A case introduced earlier (Chapter 1, inquiry 11) will illustrate. That case recounted the poignant situation of a young girl who was raised by foster parents from infancy and then, at age 9, returned by court order to the former drug addicts who had neglected her. The effects that must be considered in this situation include those on the real parents, the foster parents, and the girl herself. The effects on the real parents, of course, are beneficial. They gain a purpose for living and for remaining off drugs. They can overcome the terrible sense of loss and of failure that must have plagued them ever since their child was taken from them. Unfortunately, the foster parents experience almost the opposite effect: a feeling of helplessness, a profound sense of loss, and perhaps a bitterness about the seeming unfairness of the court decision.

The obvious effect on the little girl is sadness and confusion at being separated from the only parents she has ever known and at being given, like some inanimate object, to two strangers. But a deeper, delayed effect is also possible. Such an experience could leave an emotional scar on her. Will she be made bitter and cynical about human relationships? Will she be driven inward, avoiding the sharing of love and affection with others because of the subconscious fear that they, too, may be taken from her? Will she be filled with resentment toward her real parents and turn against them and all they try to do for her?Each of these possibilities is very

real. Although there is always the chance that none of them may happen,

and instead her suffering may enrich her life and her trauma may lead

her to become deeply sensitive to the sufferings of others, such a happy

ending seems rather unlikely. The effect of lasting emotional damage is

more probable and thus is the best measure of the morality of the

court’s action.deos.

Reply

Hello class, given the scenario presented to us.

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.

If continuing with the idea that with regard to 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. Then Dr. Jill should be allowed to continue with her work at helping the 400 patients commit suicide. Their request if granted would provide them with that final feeling of peace and happiness. and seeking to help the greater good though not all of the 3,000 at least 400 spots will be available. Given that all that matters is the amount of happiness and unhappiness in this scenario the happiness will outweigh the unhappiness. and those unhappy which would be the 2,600 patients not allowed into the facility is in no way Dr. Jill fault nor her friend from college.

Reply:

Week 5: Utilitarianism

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.

FIRST LEAD DISCUSSION QUESTION:

Use “Utilitarianism” to determine what should be your decision of what to do faced with the choice raised by this scenario.

Utilitarianism is one of the theories of ethics. It states to provide maximum benefit to the maximum number of people. Keeping in view the terms of utilitarianism, it would be right to determine the impact of the action on the patients. This means to say that the happiness of the majority should be considered. In the case presented, around 400 patients have requested for assisted death. For a utilitarian, it is morally acceptable since doing so will cause their suffering to end. Also, if this brings happiness to them, then being a nurse, it is the moral duty to fulfil their request. This would also help the 400 people out of 3000, who are in the waiting line, to live.