More handpicked essays just for you.
Explain the main difference between consequentialist and deontological ethical theories
The difference and similarities between deontological and consequental ethical theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Quaestiones Disputate
#3) Whether it is ethical to keep a person alive if their quality of life is not good and will not improve. In such a case, what is the responsibility of the medical profession?
The following argument will be made toward the negative, suggesting that it is intrinsically unethical to keep a person alive under certain circumstances The first issue to address is the sub-components of the Quaestione in order to better set the argument in motion as a proof. The Quaestione can be divided up into the following components [whether it is ethical to keep a person alive] , [if their quality of life is not good] , [and will not improve]. , [In such a case, what is the responsibility] , [of the medical profession].
The first component is, in a general sense, unarguable. Standing alone, the statement of keeping someone alive bears a right to which every human is morally obliged to uphold. They key here is standing alone....Of course society’s code of conduct says that we must preserve life, but this can only be true to a sense until the next issue is incorporated - what if their life is not good?
What exactly is not good? If we take it from an Aristotelean point of view, we can see that Aristotle claimed that happiness or good living - being happy, healthy, prosperous, and flourishing - is the goal of human life and the basis of all ethical behavior. This eudaimonia that he begins to describe is an end, in a sense that that goal has been reached. If one can no longer reach this ultimate goal or end or is rendered unable to physically or mentally move oneself in that direction (after all, someone else can’t live your life for you to move you to happiness) their life is considered not good. A life rendered not good combined with our ethical obligation to keep someone alive, probably still not enough to grant the individual the ultimate end.
Now if you listen closely, this is where the turning point begins. Being a teleologist, Aristotle claims that every action is good only in so far that they achieve some good end. If life is not good, and we reach stage three where it will not improve, where is the action of keeping the individual alive reaching a good end. The life is not good, nor will it ever be good - so what is the good end that would result that would warrant this action to be a good action.
The ethical principle of nonmaleficence demands to first do no harm and in this case protect the patient from harm since she cannot protect. Nurses must be aware in situations such as this, that they are expected to advocate for patients in a right and reasonable way. The dilemma with nonmaleficence is that Mrs. Boswell has no chance of recovery because of her increasing debilitating mental incapability and the obvious harm that outweighs the intended benefits. If the decision were to continue treatment, suffering of the patient and family would be evident. Autonomy is the right to making own decisions and freedom to choose a plan of action. When making decisions regarding treatment of another person, it is important to respect the expressed wishes of the individual. John says that his mother would want to live as long as she could, but questions arise related to her quality of life and perception of prolonged suffering by prolonging the dying process. In BOOK states that quality of life changes throughout one’s life ...
Aristotle develops his virtue ethics by first considering ends and goods. He claims that “every action and decision, seems to seek some good” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615). Aristotle states that we pursue certain things because of the benefits it brings itself and other consequences it may bring. Aristotle suggests that this is the same for goodness. We must pursue what is good for good itself and for any other benefits it may bring. Furthermore, Aristotle suggests that through pursuing the good, we are able to determine the best way of life (Shafer-Landau 2013, 615).
There is great debate in this country and worldwide over whether or not terminally ill patients who are experiencing great suffering should have the right to choose death. A deep divide amongst the American public exists on the issue. It is extremely important to reach an ethical decision on whether or not terminally ill patients have this right to choose death, since many may be needlessly suffering, if an ethical solution exists.
This article was explaining the reasons behind why people think that eating meat is alright. It was kind of supporting my action therefore my thoughts about eating meat still remain the same. I’m going to continue eating meat even after reading this article. The article does have some arguments as to why vegetarians don’t eat meat. Reasons that people decided not to eat meat included moral responsibilities and concerns for every animals. Another reason included meat being disgusting because it could contain pathogens that made people sick. These reasoning prompted me to consider becoming a vegetarians however I know that I can’t become a vegetarian. It was in my nature to eat meat. Since I can’t became vegetarians, I was planning to reduce my meat intake a little. Instead of eating pigs, beefs, fishes, and turkeys, I planned to just eat chicken for now on. For each meal, I planned to just have less meat than I would usually eat. Because I cooked my own meals most of the time, I could change the amount of chicken meat I put into my meal. For example instead of cooking a whole chicken, I could use three fourth of the whole
Aristotle begins his ethical account by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and every choice, is thought to aim for some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (line 1094a1). Though some things might produce higher good than others, Aristotle looks for the highest good, which he says we must “desire for its own sake” and our actions are not decided on some other goal beyond this good itself (line 1094a20-25).[1] This highest good is then realized to be happiness (line 1095a16-20).
According to Aristotle the finest condition that a person can live in is that of eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is described by Aristotle as human flourishing. In order to achieve eudaimonia, one must live a life of complete virtue. Virtues are the median of the situation which would result in the preeminent good, and ultimately, the greatest outcome of what is at hand. In order to be considered virtuous, people’s actions must be done for righteous reasons. In other words, Aristotle would argue that the sheer act of kindness is not enough to be considered virtuous, if in fact, the actions were done for the wrong reasons. In addition to that, people must be aware to not fall towards either of the two vices. Vices are the extremities of any given dilemma. They can be the side that is lacking or over supplying what is necessary for a person, or object, to reach its full potential. In the well-liked movie Groundhog Day, the main character, Phil Connors, has fallen into an unexplainable predicament. Connors is forced to live an unchanged day over and over again. Connors would not be released from his condition until he reaches the intent of growing into a virtuous person, and as a result, living a life of eudaimonia.
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
Modern medicine has made leaps and bounds in the past hundred years in ways we could never imagine. Our ancestors could never imagine a life can continue on well into their 70’s and 80’s while living a normal and healthy life. Through our research and experimentation we can also sustain a life through modern machines and techniques that never existed before. However in today’s high cost of medicine and cost cutting measures, when does a life become a burden to and when do you begin to question who has a right to live and what needs to be done to give a life or to take one.
Several ethical principles that are incorporated in the nursing care of patients on a daily basis are nonmalificence, autonomy, beneficence, justice, fidelity and paternalism. Nurses should strive to comply to as many of the principles as possible. In this case there are principles which support and conflict with the wishes of the patient. The first principle that supports the wish of the patient is autonomy. Autonomy means that competent patients have the right to make decisions for themselves and the delivery of the healthcare that they receive. Another factor that would support the patient’s wish to not be resuscitated is nonmalificence. Non maleficence means that nurses should not cause harm or injury to their patients. In this case the likelihood of injury after resuscitation was greater than if the patient were allowed to expire. A principle that could have negatively affected the outcome of the provision of ethical care was paternalism. Paternalism is when a healthcare provider feels that they know what is best for a patient, regardless of the patient’s desire for their own care. I demonstrated the principle of paternalism because I thought that I knew what was best for the patient without first consulting with the patient or family. This situation might have had some very negative consequences had the patient not have been competent. Practicing a paternalistic mindset might have caused a practitioner in the same instance to force their ideas about not resuscitating the loved one onto the family. This could have caused a sense of remorse and loss of control of care amongst the
On Aristotle’s search to find the highest good of a human being, he first asked what the ergon, or task, of being human is. His main focus was mostly on what the purpose or goal of human existence should be. Aristotle said that everyone is trying to reach happiness, whether it is by having money, love, or being honored. However, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, he believes that the good we are trying to reach is one ultimate level of experience and that it is “desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.” All the other good that we experience throughout our lives is just pushing us toward the one thing that will make us happy in the end. Although we may think of being happy as a state of mind, Aristotle thought of it as how you lived your life. In other words, the happiness will not come and go within a couple of minutes or hours. It is a goal that is reached “at the end of one’s life and is a measurement of how well one has lived up to their full potential as a human being” (Shields).
1.) Aristotle begins by claiming that the highest good is happiness (198, 1095a20). In order to achieve this happiness, one must live by acting well. The highest good also needs to be complete within itself, Aristotle claims that, “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification, since we always…choose it because of itself, never because of something else (204, 1097b1). Therefore, Aristotle is claiming that we choose things and other virtues for the end goal of happiness. Aristotle goes on to define happiness as a self-sufficient life that actively tries to pursue reason (205, 1098a5). For a human, happiness is the soul pursuing reason and trying to apply this reason in every single facet of life (206, 1098a10). So, a virtuous life must contain happiness, which Aristotle defines as the soul using reason. Next, Aristotle explains that there are certain types of goods and that “the goods of the soul are said to be goods to the fullest extent…” (207, 1098b15). A person who is truly virtuous will live a life that nourishes their soul. Aristotle is saying “that the happy person lives well and does well…the end
According to Aristotle, the good life is the happy life, as he believes happiness is an end in itself. In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops a theory of the good life, also known as eudaimonia, for humans. Eudaimonia is perhaps best translated as flourishing or living well and doing well. Therefore, when Aristotle addresses the good life as the happy life, he does not mean that the good life is simply one of feeling happy or amused. Rather, the good life for a person is the active life of functioning well in those ways that are essential and unique to humans. Aristotle invites the fact that if we have happiness, we do not need any other things making it an intrinsic value. In contrast, things such as money or power are extrinsic valuables as they are all means to an end. Usually, opinions vary as to the nature and conditions of happiness. Aristotle argues that although ‘pleasurable amusements’ satisfy his formal criteria for the good, since they are chosen for their own sake and are complete in themselves, nonetheless, they do not make up the good life since, “it would be absurd if our end were amusement, and we laboured and suffered all our lives for the sake of amusing ourselves.”
In today’s fast-paced, modern and practical society people are becoming more health conscious. This includes trying to choose the best available options for a beneficial lifestyle. Exotic Greek salads, fresh fruit juices, delicate tofu preparation, smelly grilled vegetables, creamy grains soups, moisten carve soufflés, and so much more are common elections for meals for many people. They are becoming more concerned these days about the increasing health risks of a meat-based diet. On the other hand, others have taken a step further and believed that animal cruelty involved in killing animals and using them for their products is inhumane and should be outlawed. Since meat-eating has been an accepted part of the human diet across the spectrum of many civilizations for millions of years, a controversy emerges between those who want to be banned the use of animal products and those who enjoy a steak now and then. Should people consider becoming a vegan?
...good life is, Aristotle still defines a good life in a way that is too specific to be applied to all instances of human behavior. Personally, I see Aristotle’s idea of a good life to be close to my own idea of what a good life is. However, with access to thousands of years of accumulated human knowledge, I recognize that what is best for me is likely not best for everyone, and others must find their own path to happiness on their own journey.