Morality In Rulli And Millia

1505 Words 7 Pages
Rulli and Millum (2014) makes a point to include the sports car example demonstrating people’s way of thinking. The majority believe the agent has a moral duty to sacrifice his sports car to save the child. Even though, the agent endures a greater personal cost that is outweighed by his moral duty to the child. With this in mind, the agent may not believe the damage to the sports car is worth the risk to save the child, as a consequence, he may not feel morally obligated to do so. Thenceforth, the agent has a right to assess the situation and decide whether or not to intervene.
Alternatively, a simpler and less heroic action would be to warn the child of the oncoming train. This would be sufficient enough to save the child, in addition to no cost at the expense of the agent. Henceforth, this action would be optimal for both the agent and child; the agent has no damage to his car and the child is left uninjured. I believe the point Rulli and Millium were trying to make was that of people
…show more content…
Despite this, institutes are set up to spread the burden across individuals, in doing so institutes are able to organise rescues without the cost on one individual alone. With this in mind, the demands of force of rescue are not considered onerous on the institutes. Additionally, doctors are expected to provide medical care when needed even when out of an institutional setting. Doctors have a responsibility to rescue like moral agents, except, doctors responsibility increases when the rescue involves their professional role. Thus, decisions of the level of patient care happen at a societal or institutional level. I think hospitals need to be run at a societal or professional level to contain the force that the duty of rescue has in professionals. Restricting professionals decision making in rescues not only takes away liability but ensures a more just healthcare

Related Documents