Utilitarianism in its simplest form, claims that the morally right action is that which produces the greatest good, but questions not what the means are to achieve it. Jeremy Bentham and later John Stuart Mill are regarded as the founders of modern utilitarianism and believe that the greatest good is pleasure. John Stuart Mill (1806-73), states that utilitarianism is the moral theory that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” John Harris’s proposes a ‘survival lottery’ which would minimise the overall number of deaths in a society by arbitrarily sacrificing individuals so their organs can be used to ‘give life’ to others. Therefore more lives would be saved by the transplants than the amount taken by sacrifice. This is a rational proposal but one which faces much objection because of the moral issues raised, specifically the belief that it is wrong to kill and the importance of human life. This essay will argue that it is reasonable to suggest that a proposal that saves lives is desirable, and that killing one to save three or four is arguably the doctors duty or moral responsibility. Despite all of this, human beings will never accept this scheme either as a loss of liberty or because valuable resources could potentially be wasted on those undeserving of them.
John Harris visualises a world where transplant operations are faultless and that anyone who needs a transplant can have the operation successfully providing that there are the suitable organs accessible, if not the doctor would have to let them die. Y and Z refuse to accept this inevitable death and argue on utilitarian grounds that it is better if one human dies and donates his organ...
... middle of paper ...
...this in itself produces less happiness. Consequently, the main problem with the proposal no matter how desirable it is, human beings will always refuse to accept it purely because of moral beliefs that killing is wrong and Peter Singers main argument that valuable resources could potentially be wasted on those undeserving of them.
Works Cited
• Mill, John Stuart. “Of What Sort of Proof the Principle of Utility is Susceptible,” in Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn, 1863.
• Bennet, Jonathon ‘Whatever the consequence’ Analysis (1966)
• Scarre, Geoffrey, Utilitarianism (Chatham: Routledge, 1996.)
• Harris, John. The survival lottery, philosophy 50 (1975)
• Harris, John. The survival lottery, philosophy 50 (1975)
• Singer, Peter. Utility and the Survival Lottery. Vol. 52 (1977)
• Quinton, Anthony. Utilitarian Ethics. Trowbridge: Macmillan. (1989.)
In his article “Opt-out organ donation without presumptions”, Ben Saunders is writing to defend an opt-out organ donation system in which cadaveric organs can be used except in the case that the deceased person has registered an objection and has opted-out of organ donation. Saunders provides many arguments to defend his stance and to support his conclusion. This paper will discuss the premises and elements of Saunders’ argument and how these premises support his conclusion. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the effectiveness of Saunders’ argument, including its strengths and weaknesses. Lastly, it will discuss how someone with an opposing view might respond to his article,
Gregory exposes and informs the audience that there are thousands of people that are dying and suffering as a result of not being able to receive transplants. Persuasively, Gregory is pushing and convincing readers to open their eyes and agree that there should be a legal market in organ selling and that people should be compensated for their donation. The author approaches counterarguments such as the market will not be fair and the differences between a liberalist’s and conservative’s views on organ selling. Liberal claims like “my body, my choice” and the Conservative view of favoring free markets are what is causing controversy to occur. Gregory suggests that these studies “show that this has become a matter of life and death” (p 452, para 12). Overall, Anthony Gregory makes great claims and is successful in defending them. He concludes with “Once again, humanitarianism is best served by the respect for civil liberty, and yet we are deprived both… just to maintain the pretense of state-enforced propriety” (p 453, para 15). In summary, people are deprived of both humanitarianism and civil liberty all because of the false claim of state-enforced behaviors considered to be appropriate or correct. As a result, lives are lost and human welfare is at
It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to
In her article, Satel criticizes the current methods governing organ sharing in the United States, and suggests that the government should encourage organ donation, whether it was by providing financial incentives or other compensatory means to the public. Furthermore, the author briefly suggests that the European “presumed consent” system for organ donation might remedy this shortage of organs if implicated in the States.
...nts will die before a suitable organ becomes available. Numerous others will experience declining health, reduced quality of life, job loss, lower incomes, and depression while waiting, sometimes years, for the needed organs. And still other patients will never be placed on official waiting lists under the existing shortage conditions, because physical or behavioral traits make them relatively poor candidates for transplantation. Were it not for the shortage, however, many of these patients would be considered acceptable candidates for transplantation. The ban of organ trade is a failed policy costing thousands of lives each year in addition to unnecessary suffering and financial loss. Overall, there are more advantages than disadvantages to legalizing the sale of organs. The lives that would be saved by legalizing the sale of organs outweighs any of the negatives.
Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill.” Utilitarianism: past, present and future. http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm (accessed December 05, 2011).
Svenaeus, F. (2010). The body as a gift, resource or commodity? Heidegger and the ethics of organ transplantation. Bioethical Inquiry , 7, 163-172.
Harris suggests that Y’s good lungs be used to save Z or to use Z’s good heart to save Y. In this situation, only one person would die. The overall happiness would be greater in the entire situation because even though one person is still dying, no outside person would be involved. It is the same amount of death, but it involves less people. However, this is still unfair to whichever person dies. “The Survival Lottery” suggests that patients Y’s and Z’s numbers be thrown into the lottery. They are going to die eventually, so their numbers should also be put into the lottery. Harris raises the counter point that some people would not believe that people should be categorized. They would say that it is morally wrong to put the patients into a sub-class as if their life is not as important as others. A utilitarian would have to believe this because it results in the most happiness. This is also the fairest way to decide who is in the lottery. It does not call on an innocent person to sacrifice his life and make more people unnecessarily
Throughout history physicians have faced numerous ethical dilemmas and as medical knowledge and technology have increased so has the number of these dilemmas. Organ transplants are a subject that many individuals do not think about until they or a family member face the possibility of requiring one. Within clinical ethics the subject of organ transplants and the extent to which an individual should go to obtain one remains highly contentious. Should individuals be allowed to advertise or pay for organs? Society today allows those who can afford to pay for services the ability to obtain whatever they need or want while those who cannot afford to pay do without. By allowing individuals to shop for organs the medical profession’s ethical belief in equal medical care for every individual regardless of their ability to pay for the service is severely violated (Caplan, 2004).
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
The term desirable in his proof shows that humans tend to seek what is intrinsically good like pleasure and happiness; however, desirable could also mean simply desiring anything else like robbing a bank. In this case, the act of stealing is immoral to begin with because it does not promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. A second case for surgeon B, what if she is acquainted with a healthy person with no one to miss him, and there are four patients desperately require organ transplants. The greatest happiness principle require that she accepts murder as a way to save the four lives instead of one because her act will promote the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. Now, the act of murder is immoral regardless of circumstance because ultimately harvesting organs in such manners will lead to societal disorder, fear, and unhappiness among the majority of people. Utilitarianism hold that it is impermissible to cause pain just for the sake of pain; meanwhile, it is permissible to cause pain for the sake of greater
This experiment, proposed by Harris, encouraged people to imagine a world where organ donation was expected to save more lives than it would kill. Under these circumstances, a person is obligated to give up his or her life to save one or more lives in need of a donation when they are drawn from the lottery. Hence, all lives are considered equal and two lives saved are of more value than the one life that dies. Because Utilitarianism is the concept that the right thing to do is the action that maximizes total benefit and reduces suffering, the “Survival Lottery” is morally permissible according to Utilitarianism.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
In conclusion, although there are some valid reasons to support the creation of an organ market based on the principles of beneficence and autonomy, there are also many overriding reasons against the market. Allowing the existence of organ markets would theoretically increase the number of organ transplants by living donors, but the negative results that these organ markets will have on society are too grave. Thus, the usage of justice and nonmaleficence as guiding ethical principles precisely restricts the creation of the organ market as an ethical system.
J.S. Mill, 'What Utilitarianism Is' from Peter Y. Windt, An Introduction to Philosophy: Ideas in Conflict, St Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1982.