The Difficult Case of Baby Teresa A child is born without a brain. The baby girl still has her brain stem intact so her heart still beats and functions like breathing continue. Her organs are still perfectly functional and have the ability to save many other babies’ lives but after nine days without harvesting them her organs will have deteriorated to the point where they would be useless. Harvesting her organs, however, would end her life. This is the situation that the parents of baby Teresa found themselves in. In the recent discussions of the truly awful situation of baby Teresa a controversial issue is whether or not the parents of Teresa should sacrifice their baby’s life to save the lives of other babies. Many argue that the morally
…show more content…
John Mill a leading philosopher during the nineteenth century explains utilitarianism by saying, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 93). This demonstrates that in utilitarian’s view a morally right act is one that creates the most happiness. So it is morally right to harvest Teresa’s organs even though it would kill her because in that outcome more lives would be spared, which arguably would create more happiness. Additionally, utilitarians fully believe in that if the result is more overall happiness the ends justify the means. This means that it doesn 't matter that one would be ending a babies life but that in doing so they would also be saving many other lives. Even if it meant killing Teresa’s life, harvesting her organs to save others is the morally correct thing to do for a …show more content…
For instance, when it comes to the divine command theory, no matter what God one believes in and even if that God was real, unless this God actually told the parents what to do, it is still up to human’s interpretations of the word of God. This means that where as some people could interpret God saying killing is wrong as a universal rule, others might believe that there is always exceptions especially when killing one person could mean saving many others. Although God has said something we can never truly know what the correct way to decipher it is. When it comes to utilitarianism issues are shown with this point of view when one looks at a rather similar situation where in order to save the lives of many, it is necessary to torture somebody or an innocent person needs to be sacrificed. In all situations the outcomes including that of harvesting Teresa’s organs seem to be just about the same. One person dies or is sacrificed but many others benefit or are saved. Yet even though there is more happiness created in society as a whole, it seems immoral to ever kill an innocent person. Although each belief answers the difficult question of morality, both have many
John Mill a leading philosopher during the nineteenth century explains utilitarianism by saying, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals utility or the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 93). This demonstrates that in utilitarian’s view a morally right act is one that creates the most happiness. So it is morally right to harvest Teresa’s organs even though it would kill her because in that outcome more lives would be spared, which arguably would create more happiness. Additionally, utilitarians fully believe in that if the result is more overall happiness the ends justify the means. This means that it doesn 't matter that one would be ending a babies life but that in doing so they would also be saving many other lives. Even if it meant killing Teresa’s life, harvesting her organs to save others is the morally correct thing to do for a …show more content…
For instance, when it comes to the divine command theory, no matter what God one believes in and even if that God was real, unless this God actually told the parents what to do, it is still up to human’s interpretations of the word of God. This means that where as some people could interpret God saying killing is wrong as a universal rule, others might believe that there is always exceptions especially when killing one person could mean saving many others. Although God has said something we can never truly know what the correct way to decipher it is. When it comes to utilitarianism issues are shown with this point of view when one looks at a rather similar situation where in order to save the lives of many, it is necessary to torture somebody or an innocent person needs to be sacrificed. In all situations the outcomes including that of harvesting Teresa’s organs seem to be just about the same. One person dies or is sacrificed but many others benefit or are saved. Yet even though there is more happiness created in society as a whole, it seems immoral to ever kill an innocent person. Although each belief answers the difficult question of morality, both have many