Analysis of the Ethics Cases - Case Study Example

Ethics Case Studies Case Study A (Ethical Egoism) If Paula follows the dictates of ethical egoism, then she has to find out if the company allows her to make donations as she pleases without anyone questioning her actions or motives. Additionally, she needs to know if she can make donations in secret without the company finding out or even caring about the bribes which she can get from the charities. Fundamentally, ethical egoism asks Paula to work in her own interest and since donating to certain charities is bound to affect her own financial position in a significant way and she has to keep that consideration in mind before she makes any decision to hand out any money (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2006). Of course Paula may feel an intrinsic need to help people and donate to charities which not only help a great number of people but also giver her some benefits in the process. This could be one way in which the demands of both ethical egoism and utilitarianism could be fulfilled. Paula can also take another course of action in which she fully discloses the facts about the charities willing to bribe her to her superiors in the company. She can then show them that she refused to give donations to those charities that are going to bribe her and focused on those who are helping others without bribing anyone. In such a situation, Paula has simply exchanged one advantage to herself for another. Instead of getting money from the charities she would be giving donations to, she has simply gone and established a greater level of trust with her bosses. At the same time, she has shown commitment to her job and to the company’s objective of making the right donations which will certainly improve her position in the long run. It seems that ethical egoism would benefit her regardless of the approach she takes where one benefit is a long term investment to be recuperated later while another is an immediate boost to her bank account (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2006). Case Study A (Utilitarianism) If Paula goes by the rules set for ethics under utilitarianism, she has to make sure that her actions do the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2006). In this case, the objective of donations and of money being given to others is simple since she has to find out the charity which makes sure that a lot of people are benefited by the money given to them. However, it must be assumed by Paula that giving money to an organization which seeks to help people will do what is best for the people. In some cases, giving people money for nothing may not be the best solution and Paula has to make a careful analysis of which charity deserves money and which has a plan that can be doubted. Of course, by going towards this path, Paula essentially has to ignore her own happiness and advantages which may come from the bribes the charities are willing to give her. However, as per the guidelines of utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number of people is more important than individual benefits (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2006). Case Study Part B The act performed by Edgar was mercy killing or euthanasia which in and of itself is quite a dilemma for most ethical experts. Doctors and medical practitioners in general are supposed to help those in need and the alleviate pain but are not supposed to take active part in ending life. However, in this case Edgar went against the rules given to him and he went against his duties of fighting for the lives of the patients under his care. Moreover, he forged the signature of a doctor, took medicine without permission and administered it to a suffering patient without showing regard for the rules of the hospital. Under the guidelines given by utilitarianism, his actions were certainly going against the concept of doing good since he ended the life of the patient under his care, committed fraud, took part in theft and went against the rules which had been placed by his superiors. At the same time, he certainly acted with good intentions since he wanted to end the suffering of a woman dying from a terminal disease which has no cure. Moreover, he did the woman some good because he ended her pain and suffering. However, it seems that the major reasons a utilitarian would overlook this crime would be the nature of the hospital which is ‘busy’. Rather than use up precious and expensive resources on a dying woman, the same resources could be used to provide life saving services to other individuals who have a realistic hope of being saved by Edgar and his colleagues (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2006). It could be hard to be sure if death is a good consequence for the old woman who had been suffering for a long time but her request was sincere and it sounds like she certainly wished to die. Edgar simply promised to end her suffering and then lived up to the expectations of the old lady. Utilitarianism certainly has problems with it and the situation described in the case study is just one such example where a lot of questions need to be asked and the situation has to be better understood before a decision based on any ethical school can be made. However, since the death of the old lady seems to have resulted in good being done for the old woman and could even be good for her family, utilitarianism might support the actions of Edgar. Similarly, since his actions have freed up the bed and other resources for those who could actually benefit from the hospital services, a utilitarian might actually push for euthanasia to be made an acceptable practice. In fact, it is entirely possible that a utilitarian could actually think that Edgar is behaving unethically if he continues to give care to an old cancer patient while children around him are dying of other lesser but curable diseases. Case Study Part C The case describes the most important criticism of utilitarianism that it is not always possible to accurately predict what actions or decisions will render the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the future (Thiroux and Krasemann, 2006). The judge has to make a decision based on the information that s/he has been provided with and it is clear that one parent will be able to give a life of luxury supported with good health care and private education which might be the best option for the child. On the other hand, the same parent will not be able to provide the personal connection, love and support which the other parent will be able to give. Going with the parent offering a life of luxury also means that the child will have to spend extended periods of time alone or with another caregiver while the parent is away. The parent offering attention and love can not offer money and the financial support which can give the child things such as private school education. It seems that the basic dilemma is between love and money and which would be more important for all concerned parties. The judge might be tempted to put the child in the custody of the rich parent if s/he takes a long term view for society in connection with utilitarianism. A child who has a private school education and is able to excel due to his education may be more beneficial for society as a professional rather than a child who has only received the basics in life. However, a child who has received the basics and has had support and love from the parent could also be a boon for society in terms of how they grow up to be a viable member of society. Additionally, even in present terms, as soon as a decision is made one of the parents is going to be sad while the other is going to be happy which means that the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is rather difficult to achieve. One solution that does present itself is the idea that the judge can award joint custody to both parents while the parent who provides love and a happy home should retain the child with visitation and support rights for the parent who has offered a life of luxury. In such a case, the child would be able to get the private education as well as the top notch healthcare needed by him/her while being in a house where s/he is given all the attention s/he needs. Of course such a decision may not be possible in which case the judge has to use his best judgment placed with the rules of utilitarianism without knowing the guarantees of the future. Therefore, the parent who can provide a good education and excellent healthcare would be most likely to produce a child who can give something back to society with the education that they have received from being in a home which can afford it. The judge does not know if this decision is going to be good for the future since a child who grows up without love may just become a serial killer and end up costing society a lot more. However, since the good of the people is difficult to ascertain, the judge will most probably be crossing his fingers as s/he makes the decision. Works Cited Thiroux, J. and Krasemann, K. 2006, Ethics: Theory and Practice, Prentice Hall. Read More