However, this is unacceptable in deontology, because doctors and nurses are expected to follow moral obligations and duty, they have confidentiality rules to follow, for what’s the best interest of the patient and breaching the patient’s confidentially is not one of them. The acts that a person commits in deontology are always judged independently of their outcomes. Therefore, clinical staff and physicians have a moral duty, to take care of a patient, even if the patient is a rapists or serial murderer, clinicians still have a moral duty, as a moral agent to care for the patient, no matter what the patient has done. Kant viewed this as a categorical imperative, that it’s the doctors and nurse’s moral duty to take care of a patient, even if …show more content…
It would set new precedence and new behaviors that murdering is okay, creating a new universal law. Because whatever you do or however you act, creates a new universal law. Even the golden rule fails here, because if we ask the question, what if everyone did that? It would lead to catastrophe because everyone would be killing everyone. Although, Kantian’s do believe killing is immoral, and wrong, and are against Mercy killing, Kant’s Lex talionis rule, an eye for an eye, the murderer would be sentenced to die, just like they did to their victim, since the killer is morally corrupted, the same kind of punishment should be used, this would work for a person who commits murder. However, what about the person that makes an honest mistake and kills someone accidently, they would get the same sentence as the murderer, which would not be fair. So, Lex talionis, would fail for the person that made an honest …show more content…
Here is how you would be able to tell if Mercy killing is universalizable. It’s the three-part test, testing consistency and fairness. 1. Formulate a maxim, state what you are going to do. That would be killing a terminal ill patient. 2. Then, imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on this maxim. 3. Then ask yourself, can this goal of my action be achieved in this world? Since, killing violates the law, then the answer is no. Mercy killing cannot be viewed as universal. If everyone did it, society would be in a state of nature. However, the principle of Universalizability has a downside to it because, you could still commit and crime and be rational and do your maxim duty, and do wrong. For instance, if a nurse’s maxim is to pass out prescription drugs to her patients, she could pass too many prescriptions to one person, and cause an overdose to the patient, resulting in the patient’s death. Clearly, it’s the wrong thing to do, but she did meet her maxim and her goal was met to pass out prescription drugs. According to Kant’s principle of Humanity, every autonomous and rational person deserves respect and dignity, as humans are sacred, but the problem with this principle is, not everyone is rational or autonomous to make their own decisions. What about people left in a in a
The les talionis approach to capital punishment should not be limited only murder just because “the uniqueness of the crime has to do with the uniqueness of the value which has been deliberately destroyed” (Primoratz 357.) To approach one crime and punishment with a retributive mindset clearly fails Kant’s decree that “an action is permissible if the maxim can be universalized” (Vaughn 122.) If the punishment for murder is death, then all other punishment for any other crime should resemble the
According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards.
Deontological theory is a “theory of duty” (book). This theory focuses on what is right. It focuses on the duties that we have for ourselves and for one another. Jermey Bentham, a utilitarian philosopher, was the inventor of deontological. He believed that this theory was guided in the same direction as the principle of utility. However, today deontological theories shows contrast with utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant, who is regarded as the greatest modern philosopher, saw deontology as something that contradicts utilitarianism. The utilitarian theories focus on consequences over what is right. They focus on the quality and quantity of happiness that an action brings. Kant emphasizes that we “are worthy of happiness only when we
Immanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that
I am going to apply the theory of Kant’s Deontology to the case regarding assisted suicide for psychological suffering.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Mercy killing is the act of taking someone’s life painlessly. Victims of mercy killing “include persons who are in a vegetative state or those who suffer from an incurable and painful disease or condition.” People argue and refute mercy killing whether it is acceptable or not. It is neither acceptable nor wrong, arguably it is required to be a necessity when dealing with cases when there are no other options than surviving in the world in misery. In Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck’s character, Lennie, mentally ill, has committed a treacherous act of murder by mere accident because he was panicked. He is mercy killed by his close friend and sort of master, George, so that he will no longer be in misery and suffering. Mercy killing is a
I am going to argue why it is okay to tell as small lie to a friend in order to spare their feelings. I am going to touch on two ethical models, these being, Utilitarianism and Deontology. The individual that is a Utilitarian is Jeremy Bentham and the Deontologist is Immanuel Kant. I will be sharing their ideas and explaining why Jeremy Bentham’s ideas are more defensible than Kant’s ideas. I believe that if you are a good friend, it is important for you to keep the most optimal happiness between your friends and yourself. With Bentham's theory, Utilitarianism, the overall goal is to make the most people happy (Bentham 1). If the storyline of a lie is what makes the most people happy, Benthem says it is okay to lie. For Kant, a person is never
Patient confidentiality is one of the foundations to the medical practice. Patients arrive at hospitals seeking treatment believing that all personal information will remain between themselves and the medical staff. In order to assure patients privacy, confidentiality policies were established. However, a confidentiality policy may be broken only in the case the medical staff believes that the patient is a danger to themselves or to others in society. Thesis Statement: The ethics underlying patient confidentiality is periodically questioned in our society due to circumstances that abruptly occur leaving health professionals to decide between right and wrong.
Immanuel Kant was a moral philosopher. His theory, better known as deontological theory, holds that intent, reason, rationality, and good will are motivating factors in the ethical decision making process. The purpose of this paper is to describe and explain major elements of his theory, its essential points, how it is used in the decision making process, and how it intersects with the teams values.
This paper explores the legal, ethical and moral issues of three healthcare colleagues by applying the D-E-C-I-D-E model as a foundation of decision making as found in Thompson, Melia, and Boyd (2006). Issues explored will be those of the actions of registered nurse (RN) John, his fiancé and also registered nurse (RN) Jane and the Director of Nursing (DON) Ms Day. Specific areas for discussion include the five moral frameworks, autonomy, beneficence, Non – maleficence, justice and veracity in relation with each person involved as supported by Arnold and Boggs (2013) and McPherson (2011). An identification and review of the breached code of ethics and the breached code of conduct in reference with the Nursing, Council, and Federation (2008) will be addressed. Lastly a brief discussion on how the three schools of thought deontology, teleology and virtue had effects on each colleague (McPherson, 2011) .
6). Good intention is the main moral principle considered and consequences are irrelevant (Joel, 2013, p. 526). Seemingly, the deontological ideology focuses on the actions of the agent and would disregard patient focus and individuality. It is difficult to apply contemporary ethical theories to the nurse because of the values of the nursing profession. “Contemporary ethical theories do not lend themselves to the health-care professions or to ethically defensible decisions in health-care practice. None of the dominant ethical theories could be discovered in, or derived from, the profession of nursing” (Joel, 2013, p. 526). Casuistry, while not an ethical theory, is a case-based approach to practical decision-making. Cases that have set precedence are identified and comparisons are made using similarities, differences, and previous experiences. This concept is used to complement ethical theories in patient decision making by clinical ethics committees (Slowther, Johnston, Goodall, & Hope, 2004, § C4). Personally and professionally balancing ethical perspectives to be able to consider all details on a case by case basis seems like a more appropriate
Perhaps one of the most influential philosophers associated with deontology was Emmanuel Kant. Kant believed that consequences of one’s actions were irrelevant, as long as the intent and motives were to do what is morally just (Black, 2017, p. 132). As nurses, we have the capacity to do right, as well as wrong, yet it is our ability to overlook discrimination, respect individual autonomy, and value another person, that is the most moral. It is with this intention that our actions are performed and that remains central to this theory.
On the contrary, Kantian ethics value every individual rather than the majority. This theory holds that every human has rights and an action is wrong if it violates them. Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative states “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (O’Neill 400) This states that you can not use people in a way that they would not consent to. Kantian ethics also state that
While Kant’s position of putting others before oneself and thinking of the consequences of one’s actions creates a noble and righteous view of morality. However, it does have a few concerning loopholes. For example, if someone were to try to carry out an action that would cause no harm to others if everyone else also did it, this would obviously pass under the universal law. However, if the person had to do something considered immoral in order to be able to carry out the action, it would still pass the requirements necessary for an action to be considered to fall under the universal law, as this action has no effect on the primary action that passed under the law. For example, if someone decided that they were going to drive their car to work and hit anyone who stood in the way, this would still fit within the universal law as killing these people would have no effect on getting to work. In addition, if this were established as a universal law and everyone did it, it would not affect the first person from getting to work. Therefore, it fits the universal law. Obviously, murder would not heed to the categorical imperative in any other way other than through this loophole. Kant makes the mistake of assuming that everything will work out through his categorical imperative, but conflicts such as this cause that to be impossible, making it an extensive flaw in his reasoning