In order to consider the topic of rational justification of decision-making and moral responsibility, one must observe the case study that was presented, which was titled, Baby Samantha. This particular case study is a very interesting one due to the fact that Geoff Baumgartner, the disability home’s manager, has Samantha’s life in the palm of his hands. The main argument held is whether or not Geoff should let baby Samantha die due to negligence where the disability home had failed to pump her antibiotics in or where a judge would be informed that she died of a runaway infection, which couldn’t be stopped to save Samantha. The moral problem at hand here is whether or not letting Samantha die is the right thing to due based on all of the facts
…show more content…
According to John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is mostly defined by ones actions being guided in the direction of their own happiness. If it makes one happy, then it is morally the right thing to do. Now, we must look at how Mill defines happiness. He says that happiness is, “Pleasure in the absence of pain.” This was a profound discussion we had towards the beginning of class. I agree with the fact that if it makes us happy, we should continue doing it. However, the topic of serial killers arose in the discussion panels held. The argument goes as follows: If killing people brings pleasure in the absence of pain, then it is the right thing to do because we are doing what brings us happiness. Furthermore, the question that needs to be asked is that, “Is this morally right?” In my opinion, one must do what they love, but must be ‘right’ in the eyes of the law. One must not break laws in order to fulfill happiness because it is morally wrong. However, one must do what they enjoy doing. Mill also goes on to say, “We are told that a utilitarian will be apt to make his own particular case an exception to moral rules, and, when under temptation, will see a utility in the breach of a rule, greater than he will see in its observance.” What Mill says here is an important quote that ties into the case study due to the fact that in the end, Geoff is going to have to make his own decision based on what he views as morally
According to John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is mostly defined by ones actions being guided in the direction of their own happiness. If it makes one happy, then it is morally the right thing to do. Now, we must look at how Mill defines happiness. He says that happiness is, “Pleasure in the absence of pain.” This was a profound discussion we had towards the beginning of class. I agree with the fact that if it makes us happy, we should continue doing it. However, the topic of serial killers arose in the discussion panels held. The argument goes as follows: If killing people brings pleasure in the absence of pain, then it is the right thing to do because we are doing what brings us happiness. Furthermore, the question that needs to be asked is that, “Is this morally right?” In my opinion, one must do what they love, but must be ‘right’ in the eyes of the law. One must not break laws in order to fulfill happiness because it is morally wrong. However, one must do what they enjoy doing. Mill also goes on to say, “We are told that a utilitarian will be apt to make his own particular case an exception to moral rules, and, when under temptation, will see a utility in the breach of a rule, greater than he will see in its observance.” What Mill says here is an important quote that ties into the case study due to the fact that in the end, Geoff is going to have to make his own decision based on what he views as morally