I will begin this paper by stating that I take on the viewpoint of a Kantian. The issue at hand is whether a physician should harvest the organs of a Mr. X who is a convicted criminal, divorced, and has abandoned his two kids. Mr. X is currently in a deteriorating state, with only a few months to leave, thus the question posed, is whether a surgeon should be allowed to transplant his organs to five career-oriented individual persons who are all treasured by their families? Although these five individuals may suffer the fate of death, I truly stand on the notion that Mr, X should not be killed in order to save the lives of these five individuals.
First off, I will begin with an obvious noteworthy point opposing my stance, which I later subject …show more content…
(Kant, p. 530) This brings to light another deontological Kantian principle, good will. The morality of the transplant will depend on the motivation behind it. If the motivation is solely based on the achievement of the improved health of the five individuals while killing Mr. X, there is an absence of good will, thus the action should be impermissible. Kant explains that the good will of actions should be a solid foundation upon which they should be carried out (Kant, p. 525).
I will conclude with another Kantian principle of categorical imperative, which centers on the idea of always preserving life (Kant, p 531). Thus, the surgeon is acting immorally by killing Mr. X for his organs. I do want to further establish this point of categorical imperative as a meeting ground, where the surgeon could perhaps inform Mr. X of the patients who require organs. Mr. X can take it upon himself to perform an act of good will in providing informed consent to allow for transplanting specific organs such as kidneys, which would preserve his life and possibly another of the five
First off, I will begin with an obvious noteworthy point opposing my stance, which I later subject …show more content…
(Kant, p. 530) This brings to light another deontological Kantian principle, good will. The morality of the transplant will depend on the motivation behind it. If the motivation is solely based on the achievement of the improved health of the five individuals while killing Mr. X, there is an absence of good will, thus the action should be impermissible. Kant explains that the good will of actions should be a solid foundation upon which they should be carried out (Kant, p. 525).
I will conclude with another Kantian principle of categorical imperative, which centers on the idea of always preserving life (Kant, p 531). Thus, the surgeon is acting immorally by killing Mr. X for his organs. I do want to further establish this point of categorical imperative as a meeting ground, where the surgeon could perhaps inform Mr. X of the patients who require organs. Mr. X can take it upon himself to perform an act of good will in providing informed consent to allow for transplanting specific organs such as kidneys, which would preserve his life and possibly another of the five