If we applied Kant’s deontological ethical theory to our above situation, Larry’s toe would be treated and he would be sent on his way, all organ’s intact. If we were to harvest Larry’s organs to save the other 5 citizens we would be breaking Kant’s fundamental rules, no matter what other moral duty we felt we faced. First, we wouldn’t want people to think it’s ok to start harvesting organs whenever an organ was needed, and second, by harvesting Larry’s organs we are using him as an end.
Compare and Contrast
Now that we’ve looked at each ethical theory in greater detail and applied it to our situation of harvesting Larry’s organ’s, we should analyze each theory against one another. While each theory has unique and intricate attributes …show more content…
Their similarities are slim, they both consider morally right and wrong on what the ending consequences may be (hence the category ‘consequential’), but outside of that they are polar opposites. Ethical Egoism bases decisions on what is morally right or wrong for that person, they think only of themselves and how the decision will affect them. Act Utilitarianism examines (though intrinsic mathematical detail) what is morally right and wrong for the greatest number of people. So to sum the differences up more effectively, Ethical Egoism is, in essence, being ‘selfish’ while Act Utilitarianism is …show more content…
If I was really the doctor and faced with a situation of 5 citizens needing organ transplants and one homeless man with an infected toe, I would do everything in my power to help all 6 people, but not at the expense of anyone else. My reputation wouldn’t enter my mind, nor would the end result as long as I knew I put all my effort into trying to save each person. I feel my decision would come from Kant’s Deontological theory where we treat others as we would wish to be treated. I wouldn’t want organ harvesting to become the norm in society, and I sure wouldn’t want to go into a hospital with a minor issue and be killed so someone could take my organs. I feel this is morally right decision to make, the so called ‘importance’ of a person shouldn’t matter in a situation such as this. So what if Larry’s not a heart surgeon, or the governor, he could be the world to someone else. If nothing else, he is a human being who should have basic human rights no matter what his financial situation is. No persons right to life should be based on what’s in their checking account, or how many people out there may depend on them. A world such as that doesn’t seem like much of a morally right world at all, since societal importance can be very subjective. Personally, I’d love to live in a world that valued life, everyone’s life, and didn’t look at the cloths on someone’s
Compare and Contrast
Now that we’ve looked at each ethical theory in greater detail and applied it to our situation of harvesting Larry’s organ’s, we should analyze each theory against one another. While each theory has unique and intricate attributes …show more content…
Their similarities are slim, they both consider morally right and wrong on what the ending consequences may be (hence the category ‘consequential’), but outside of that they are polar opposites. Ethical Egoism bases decisions on what is morally right or wrong for that person, they think only of themselves and how the decision will affect them. Act Utilitarianism examines (though intrinsic mathematical detail) what is morally right and wrong for the greatest number of people. So to sum the differences up more effectively, Ethical Egoism is, in essence, being ‘selfish’ while Act Utilitarianism is …show more content…
If I was really the doctor and faced with a situation of 5 citizens needing organ transplants and one homeless man with an infected toe, I would do everything in my power to help all 6 people, but not at the expense of anyone else. My reputation wouldn’t enter my mind, nor would the end result as long as I knew I put all my effort into trying to save each person. I feel my decision would come from Kant’s Deontological theory where we treat others as we would wish to be treated. I wouldn’t want organ harvesting to become the norm in society, and I sure wouldn’t want to go into a hospital with a minor issue and be killed so someone could take my organs. I feel this is morally right decision to make, the so called ‘importance’ of a person shouldn’t matter in a situation such as this. So what if Larry’s not a heart surgeon, or the governor, he could be the world to someone else. If nothing else, he is a human being who should have basic human rights no matter what his financial situation is. No persons right to life should be based on what’s in their checking account, or how many people out there may depend on them. A world such as that doesn’t seem like much of a morally right world at all, since societal importance can be very subjective. Personally, I’d love to live in a world that valued life, everyone’s life, and didn’t look at the cloths on someone’s