Response to Question 1 from Utilitarian Perspective
As the head of the pediatric surgery, I would recommend that the Emma and Sophia be surgically separated. According to the Utilitarian approach, which holds that, an act is right if it brings the maximum amount of happiness and minimizes suffering (Edges & Groves, 2006, p. 35). In order words, we should act in a way that would maximize the overall happiness. Happiness comes from the feeling of immense pleasure and absence of pain. Therefore I would have to separate Emma and Sophia in the expense of one of them life if that is a risk. Simply because failing to do so, would result in pain instead of happiness, as the life of Emma and Sophia would be in danger and they could both die. Under …show more content…
Deontologist theory bases morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation ((Edges & Groves, 2006, p. 35). For example, it is wrong for parents to not care for their kids even if it results to great benefit like financial savings. Regardless of the overall result or consequences, certain acts are morally right and others are morally wrong. Therefore, the end does not justify the means. Kant formulation is that “a categorical imperative is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we have” (Fieser, n.d). Therefore, human beings should be treated with respect and dignity. As a neonatal nurse, I would argue that although separating Emma and Sophia would bring the greatest amount of overall good because saving one is better than living both to die, it is wrong to separate the twins because it involves saving one life at the expense of the other. Singer (as cited in Geirsson & Holmgren, p.332) asserts that if we are sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then it is wrong. However, if we consider either Emma or Sophia as one individual organism with a life threatening disability, then from the deontology perspective, I cannot object that it wrong to have the weaker one with the threatening disability be removed. If my power is to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of equal moral significance, I have to do
As the head of the pediatric surgery, I would recommend that the Emma and Sophia be surgically separated. According to the Utilitarian approach, which holds that, an act is right if it brings the maximum amount of happiness and minimizes suffering (Edges & Groves, 2006, p. 35). In order words, we should act in a way that would maximize the overall happiness. Happiness comes from the feeling of immense pleasure and absence of pain. Therefore I would have to separate Emma and Sophia in the expense of one of them life if that is a risk. Simply because failing to do so, would result in pain instead of happiness, as the life of Emma and Sophia would be in danger and they could both die. Under …show more content…
Deontologist theory bases morality on specific, foundational principles of obligation ((Edges & Groves, 2006, p. 35). For example, it is wrong for parents to not care for their kids even if it results to great benefit like financial savings. Regardless of the overall result or consequences, certain acts are morally right and others are morally wrong. Therefore, the end does not justify the means. Kant formulation is that “a categorical imperative is fundamentally different from hypothetical imperatives that hinge on some personal desire that we have” (Fieser, n.d). Therefore, human beings should be treated with respect and dignity. As a neonatal nurse, I would argue that although separating Emma and Sophia would bring the greatest amount of overall good because saving one is better than living both to die, it is wrong to separate the twins because it involves saving one life at the expense of the other. Singer (as cited in Geirsson & Holmgren, p.332) asserts that if we are sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance, then it is wrong. However, if we consider either Emma or Sophia as one individual organism with a life threatening disability, then from the deontology perspective, I cannot object that it wrong to have the weaker one with the threatening disability be removed. If my power is to prevent something bad from happening, without sacrificing anything of equal moral significance, I have to do