Ethics Case Study: The Plight Of Dr. Ethos

A Case Study: The Plight of Dr. Ethos
The predicament faced by Dr. Ethos is a rare, yet challenging concept to think about. An old grumpy man walks into a crowded hospital complaining about a toothache. Through his constant nagging, he is eventually admitted to see the chief physician, Dr. Ethos. As Dr. Ethos was examining the old man, he was urgently paged to a separate exam room. As the doctor arrives in the room, he discovers ten young men and women who are in dire need of various organs in order to stay alive. They have all come to see Dr. Ethos for he is the best transplant surgeon in the world and if they do not receive the organs, they will die. Dr. Ethos knows that the anesthetized old man is the perfect ‘organ donor’ for the young
It is the idea of committing acts that produce the most amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people. In this theory, motives and intentions are not evaluated when determining the moral worth of an action. Actions are assessed through the amount of happiness or pleasure they bring about in a given situation. In order for an individual to be considered a utilitarian, the individual must always prioritize the happiness of others before he considers his own. Any man who is only concerned with his own pleasures is considered hedonistic, or one who pursues pleasure mainly for selfish reasons. “ 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 p. 7). Actions only hold moral worth if the consequences are favorable on a grand scale. In utilitarianism actions are evaluated, not people which brings about the “agent neutral” concept. Mill stated ‘the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent’s own happiness but that of all concerned…as between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested benevolent spectator.’
“Generally, if a maxim passes the categorical imperative test, the action is permissible; if it fails, the action is forbidden, and, in that case, the opposite action of omission is required.” (Kant, p. xxi). This means that an individual should only behave in a manner that their actions can be willed into moral law. For example, one may believe it is acceptable to skip work in order to stay at home and watch cartoons. The categorical imperative would permit this action if and only if the rational agent is completely content with living in a world where that particular maxim was a moral law. This would mean that everyone would be expected to skip a work day in order to stay home and watch cartoons. It may seem like a splendid idea at first, but imagine the turmoil that this one action could bring. There would be a lack of crop production because the farmers would be at home watching cartoons, there would be no one to educate the youth because the teachers would also be skipping work, etc. This is not a world anyone would want to live in, that is why is it important to reason and think all actions through to ensure that this type of issue does not occur. Actions within the categorical imperative are ones that have absolute value. This is due to the fact that these actions can be made universally valid, or can be applicable under any and all