Dr Rutland example essay topic

There is a firefighter who is obligated to make a crucial decision. Upon arrival to a five-alarm blaze, the firefighter must make a life or death decision. There are two individuals unconscious in the burning building, and only one can be saved. One person is Dr. Rutland, a world-renowned pioneer in treating suicidal-depressives. The medication he has developed has helped thousands of patients already, and when perfected, will save many more. The other individual is Dr. Rutland's secretary.

Being that only one person is to survive, who should be saved? In order to decide what the moral or ethical decision would be in this situation, one may look the utilitarian philosophy of Mill. According to Mill, The theory of morality- that pleasure, and the freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain. (Mill 1) Because Mill believes that in order to achieve morality, whatever will result in the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain will be the correct choice, he is a consequential ist. With all of this in mind, Mill derives a theory known as the Greatest Happiness Principle. The GHP requires that in order for a decision to be morally right, it has to promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

Mill states, "The ultimate end [of the GHP], is an existence exempt as far possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments, both in point of quantity and quality (Mill 2)", the quantity being the greatest number, quality being the greatest good. Mill also says that "The utilitarian standard... is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether. (Mill 2) " According to Mill's theory of utilitarianism, Dr. Rutland should be the one who is saved. Mill's theory of the greatest good for the greatest number states that in any situation when one is trying to make a decision, the right choice will always be the one that benefits most people as a result of that decision. Dr. Rutland is a famous physician who treats suicidal persons.

With his development of this medication, many lives have already been saved. With the continuation of research, the medication could be perfected, and many more lives could be saved in the future. Because the greatest happiness principle requires the most or greater number of people to be benefited, saving the secretary is irrational and illogical. In class, mention had been made about how the secretary, being female, can produce life, and therefore, she should be the one being saved. However, assuming half of the thousands of patients Dr. Rutland had saved are female, they are also, with the assistance of the medication, are able to reproduce life. Because more lives would be able to be reproduced, not only by the females who were on the medication, but as well as the men who were on the medication (it takes two to make a baby), Dr. Rutland should still be saved.

Another argument presented in class was how although Dr. Rutland had invented or created the medication, he may not be the only physician working on perfecting the medication. And even if he is doing research, he may not be the one to perfect it. Just because thousands of lives had been saved in the past does not mean others will be saved in the future. A counterargument for this, however, is that it is a "what-if" argument. Because he has saved so many lives as of this point, chances are he will continue to do so, even if he does not perfect the medication.

Also, there is no evidence that someone else is or has been working on this medication. Finally, even if there are others working on this medication, or if Dr. Rutland does not perfect the medication, if he dies in this fire, none of this will ever be known. The situation is slightly changed to make the secretary pregnant. For Mill, even if the secretary is pregnant, Dr. Rutland is the one who should be saved.

There was some controversy in class about this situation as well, about who should be the one who is saved. Some people in class stated that it was morally wrong to kill the secretary and her unborn baby. Some individuals in class stated that the secretary's baby could end up being even a better person than Dr. Rutland, and help even more people. However, this is again, a "what if" situation, and because Dr. Rutland has already helped a significant number of people, chances are he will continue to do so if he is saved. The situation is changed again to have the secretary be the firefighter's mother. Again, Mill would state that in order to fulfill the greatest good for the greatest number, it would have to be Dr. Rutland who is saved.

Just because the secretary was the firefighter's mother, she would not have as much of a benefit to society as the saving of Dr. Rutland's life. Also, in the final situation, which is that Dr. Rutland did not save lives but restored vision in his patients, Mill would still choose Dr. Rutland to survive. This because saving his life would allow for the promotion of the greater good for a greater number. There is one philosopher who would strongly disagree with the philosophy of Mill, especially when it is applied to this situation, and the various other circumstances given. Mill is a consequential ist, or an outcome-based ethicist. This means that the decision about what is morally correct is based on the best possible outcome of a situation.

In Mill's case, the best possible outcome is that which serves the greatest good for the greatest number. The one philosopher who not only strongly disagrees with Mill's utilitarianism, but also the entire basis of consequential ism, is Kant. Kant, being an agent-based ethicist, does not believe that one can judge or make a moral decision based on the outcome alone. He believes, "A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes, nor because of its fitness to attain some proposed end; it is good only through its willing, i. e., it is good in itself. (Kant 7) " Because Kant does not believe it is possible for someone to predict the future or the outcome of any decision, choice, or event, basing an entire philosophy on an end is completely preposterous. Kant believes that in order to make a moral decision, the decision cannot be made on the outcome alone.

In order to make a correct moral decision, one has two tests that can be used in order to determine if the decision has moral worth. For the first test, an individual must define the maxim, which is defining what the individual would like to do. The individual must then universalize the maxim, and see if there are any contradictions. Kant states, "There is only one categorical imperative and it is this: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law (Kant 30)". If not, that is the correct action. If there are contradictions, however, one must recognize the flaw, and eliminate that option as a possible choice because it has no moral worth, or as Kant says, "all maxims are rejected which are not consistent with the will's own legislation of universal law (38)".

Kant sums up Kant's this philosophy as follows: We can now end where we started in the beginning, viz., the concept of an unconditionally good will. That will is absolutely good which cannot be evil, i. e., whose maxim, when made into a universal law, can never conflict with itself. The principle is therefore also its supreme law: Act always according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will. This is the only condition under which a will can never be in conflict with itself, and such an imperative is categorical. Inasmuch as the validity of the will as a universal law for possible actions is analogous to the universal connection of the existence of things in accordance with the universal laws, which is the formal aspect of nature in general, the categorical imperative can also be expressed thus: Act according to maxims which can at the same time have for their object themselves as universal laws of nature. Thus, then, the formula for an absolutely good will is constituted (Kant 42).

When dealing with people, Kant's second test is the means-ends analysis. This test ensures that a person is not being used as a means to an end, and that each person will be treated with dignity. Kant believes that it is ethically bad or wrong to treat a person as a thing or a means to obtain a goal. For the means-ends analysis, one must asked him / herself if anyone is being used. Kant basically believes, Act in regard to every rational being (yourself and others) that he may at the same time count in your maxim as an end in himself, is thus basically the same as the principle: Act on a maxim which at the same time, contains in itself its own universal validity for every rational being. That in the use of means for every end my maxim should be restricted to the condition of its universal validity as a law for every subject says just the same as that a subject of ends, i. e., a rational being himself, must be made the ground for all maxims of actions and must thus be used never merely as means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i. e., always at the same time as an end (Kant 42-43).

When applying this second test to the situation of the firefighter and trying to determine who is to be saved, the firefighter has to ask if either the secretary or Dr. Rutland would be saved as a means to obtain a certain end. When asking if the secretary would be saved as a means to an end, the firefighter would answer no. However, when asking if saving Dr. Rutland would be a means to an end, the firefighter would answer yes. This is because the reason Dr. Rutland would be saved, when applying Mill's theory, is because he could save more lives if he survives. However, he is being used as a means to an end in that situation, and therefore, saving Dr. Rutland on the basis of his ability to save lives would not have any moral worth. If Dr. Rutland worked in restoring the vision to patients with defective optic nerves, and not necessarily saving people's lives, Kant still does not believe that he should be saved, so long as the motive behind saving Dr. Rutland's life would make him a mean to an end.

If the sole purpose of saving his life is to save other people's lives, saving his life has no moral worth. If, however, the reason behind saving Dr. Rutland's life is not causing him to be a mean to an end, then it may be morally right to save his life. When the situation is changed so that the secretary is pregnant, Kant's idea of what is morally right is also different from that of Mill. In the situation with Mill, Dr. Rutland would still be saved because it is for the greatest good for the greatest number.

However, Kant would have made a different decision. First of all, Kant, being an agent-based ethicist, would not agree with Mill's idea that Dr. Rutland would be the one to be saved. This is because of Kant's belief that it is impossible to predict the future. Because there is the option of saving either one person's life who may save lives if he survives, or saving the two lives, a mother and an unborn child, Kant believes that saving two lives is going to be morally correct because it is saving more than one life now, not the possibility of saving someone else's life later. If the secretary was the firefighter's mother, there are two possibilities of whether or not the firefighter should save her, based on Kant's philosophy.

Using Kant's second test to determine whether or not saving the mother would be morally right, the firefighter would have to determine if the reasons behind saving his or her mother were because of a means to an end. For example, if the reason the firefighter wanted to say his or her mother is for his own sake, or for some other "need", such as food, clothing, shelter, etc. If the firefighter were to determine that the reasons his or her mother should be saved were, indeed, for some means to an end, saving the secretary would have no moral worth. If, however, the firefighter determines that the secretary / mother is treated with the dignity and respect she deserves, then it is morally right to save her.