9. How does utilitarianism determine right and wrong? Give a brief example of utilitarianism being used in public policy today.
Utilitarianism determine right and wrong by the end result for the moral choice that produces the greatest good for the greater number of people or the course of action that produces the greatest number of consequences than harmful ones. For example when a company consider laying off employees or closing down plants to maintain competitive position in the marketplace. Acknowledging the fact that some may be harm in the process but it will keep the company in business while safe keeping jobs for other. This will be more beneficial than harmful for the best outcome in this downturn in the marketplace.
10. Briefly
…show more content…
What is the appeal of relativism? What are its shortcomings?
The appeal of relativism is consider to be all the values and norms of a culture environment that practice a set standard for all person in the same area to follow on the principle of making decisions of right and wrong. This hold true for all values and cultures are not objective to universal moral principle applicable to all cultures and time period. Any practice that is cultures norms is moral for that cultures and no one outside of that culture can make judgement on that practice.
12. List the seven elements of the author’s model for making moral decisions and very briefly expound upon each. Examples of application are welcome
The seven elements of the author’s model for making moral decisions are as follow:
a. The eighty year old man with terminal cancer – this is my decision not depending on hypocritical oath by the doctor.
b. The head of local chapter of the Hemlock society (deontologist) – The individual right to choose to live or die without interfering from the state.
c. The physician who specializes as an oncologist (utilitarian) – The action that produces the greatest benefit in ending one life would undo needless suffering, family heartache, and financial
Introduction People have moral and ethical values that assist them in making decisions about their healthcare on a daily basis. What if a person found out that they had a terminal illness and only had months to live? What if those few months would be filled with treatments, pain and suffering, tear filled family members, and high cost medical bills? Physician- assisted suicide remains a debated topic which causes physicians, nurses and those involved to take a look at what they value and what they are willing to do in order to carry out a patient’s wishes.
Marmar Tavasol Word Count: 815 The Right to End Suffering Mrs. Brown, a patient with ALS (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) should have the option to end her life prematurely or to stay alive and suffer tremendously from a disease that is bound to kill her. Based on the readings and lecture in class, it has become apparent to me that choosing to die by withdrawing medication and choosing to die by taking medication follow very similar reasoning. On the paper Story of Teresa & Terrence - The Established Medical/Legal View, a parallel description of the reasoning that is followed for each case is shown, making clear the logical differences of each patient. In my opinion, the differences in the two cases of Teresa and Terrence are trivial at best.
Though, in this paper, I have addressed several points that Dennis Plaisted has presented on why we should not legalize physician assisted suicide due to the issues with autonomy that convince the public that the state does not care enough to preserve the lives of those with less than six months to live. I argued that the limits of who and when an ill patient may be allowed to receive PAS are present for the state to relieve the pain of the ill who wish to have control over their death, and that it is only an alternative option for those patients. I considered a counterargument to my criticism, which argues that the state and doctors shouldn’t allow for PAS, as it gives the impression that the state does not care about the lives of the terminally ill. Just as well, the reputation of doctors as healers would be compromised if they supported this form of treatment. However, I explained that the quality of life is more valuable than forcing someone who is ill to suffer until their natural death.
Life is never guaranteed and whether it is through an illness or an accident, we as humans are eventually going to die. Physicians Assisted suicide is one of the most controversial issues. The issue of doctor-assisted suicide has been the subject of the heated dispute in recent years. While some oppose the idea that a physician should aid in ending a life, others believe that physicians should be permitted in helping a patient to end his or her unbearable suffering when faced with a terminal illness. Furthermore, Physician-assisted suicide should be legal; it should be the patient’s right to decide when and how he or she should die.
McGoldrick’s case. Her case focuses on two sides of one coin: living with dignity and dying with dignity. From a principlism perspective, there is tension between respecting patient autonomy – assuming decision-making capacity – and beneficence, from a clinical standpoint (9). Treatment from a ‘best-interest’ and dignity perspective differs among the various stakeholders in the case, where the family and physician believe potentially life-sustaining options must be pursued, though the patient outwardly refuses those treatments. The ethics of Mrs. McGoldrick’s wish to die and refuse treatment hinges largely upon whether she has decision-making capacity.
In the documentary, Bill Moyers talks to three terminally ill patients, their families, and their doctors about the concerns with physician-assisted suicide (PAS). PAS allows a terminally ill patient to hasten an inevitable and unavoidable death through a lethal dose. The patients considered PAS in order to end their prolonged suffering. The legal role of advance directives in end of life issues allows a patient to specify how he wishes to be treated by a healthcare provider during a progressively weakened state. Advance directives may provide patients with freedom to choose end of life treatment, but moral and religious implications, the ethical battle between a physician’s duty to care and inner-conscious, and state laws pose threats to PAS.
The Right to Die 1) Introduction a) Thesis statement: Physician assisted suicide offers patients a choice of getting out of their pain and misery, presents a way to help those who are already dead mentally because of how much a disease has taken over them, proves to be a great option in many states its legal in, and puts the family at ease knowing their love one is out of pain. i) The use of physician assisted death is used in many different countries and some states. ii) Many people who chose this option are fighting a terminal illness.
The Death with Dignity Act has two arguments: those who believe we have the right to choose how and when we die, and those who believe we do not possess that right; that we should not interfere with the natural order of life. Every year, people across America are diagnosed with a terminal illness. For some people there is time: time to hope for a cure, time to fight the disease, time to pray for a miracle. For others however, there is very little or no time. For these patients, their death is rapidly approaching and for the vast majority of them, it will be a slow and agonizing experience.
’s turn to die. I don’t believe that we should have the power to decide one’s fate. An important part to recognize that is not talked a lot about in this topic is that if euthanasia and assisted suicide is illegal, then doctors won’t have the pressure and burden of having to take someone’s life, even if the person wanted it. These people are educated to be doctors, not killers. They are meant to use everything in their power to save patients, not take away their life.
Assisted suicide is a rather controversial issue in contemporary society. When a terminally ill patient formally requests to be euthanized by a board certified physician, an ethical dilemma arises. Can someone ethically end the life of another human being, even if the patient will die in less than six months? Unlike traditional suicide, euthanasia included multiple individuals including the patient, doctor, and witnesses, where each party involved has a set of legal responsibilities. In order to understand this quandary and eventually reach a conclusion, each party involved must have their responsibilities analyzed and the underlying guidelines of moral ethics must be investigated.
Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people?
Many pro-euthanasia believers will use the autonomy argument and debate the opinion that patients should have the right to choose when and how to they want to die. In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Judge Reinhardt ruled on this topic by stating “a competent, terminally-ill adult, having lived nearly the full measure of his life, has a strong liberty interest in choosing a dignified and humane death… (De La Torre).” However, dignity cannot be measured by the level of pain or the speed in which the individual dies, because it is already a characteristic of a person’s worth as a human being (Middleton). Allowing a patient to live their life to the fullest until the very end is surely a more humane and dignified death then cutting that life short in fear of what it is coming through the practice of euthanasia. While death for these patients can be a sad ending, it does not have to condemn a person to a remaining life of sadness and negativity.
As per the reading suggested by the instructor about the philosophical idea of Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) given by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and the other concept which is given by Immanuel Kant in the critics of Utilitarianism theory which is called Deontological Ethics. The reading given made understand about all these two concept and their possible application in the policy or law making like the universal law. Utilitarianism:- this is the concept used by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and the John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The core idea of this theory is the results comes from the action taken by the group of people or the individual. According to theory the outcomes will be judged weather the action was morally right or wrong.
Life or Death Who chooses death over life? Sometimes we have to make this decision over a loved one when there is no hope for their recovery. It would be incredibly hard to make this life or death decision on another human being and twice as hard when it is someone we love. The author discusses the argument of this controversial topic of sustaining life at any cost or dying peacefully as an ethical issue. An ethicist, a person who specializes in or writes on ethics, can provide valuable discernment with respect to right and wrong motives or actions.
Relativism is the conception that believes one’s value, behavior, belief and morality have no universal validity; all of them are equally valid and are related to other certain elements. Relativism is often associated with a normative position, usually pertaining to how people ought to regard or behave towards those with whom they morally disagree. (Stanford University, 2008) Cultural relativism is a theory that deals with the diversity among different cultures. It considers that people live in a particular cultural background and enrich their culture through particular communication and innovation within the society; every culture has its own unique developmental processes that are determined by its social environment and natural surroundings.