Utilitarian ethics - Essay Example

Utilitarian Ethics Utilitarian ethics is based on the premise that the morally right of action is one that produces maximum benefits to mostof the people. Utilitarian ethics does not care what means are used to produce such benefits. It aims at finding a right kind of action in a given situation that the utilitarian ethicists find themselves trapped into. Andre and Velasquez (2010) argue that utilitarian ethicist may coerce, manipulate or even lie in order to derive the maximum benefit to everyone.

In current days, Scientists, diplomats, or business analyst think in terms of benefits and harms while suggesting a ban on certain pesticide, or making an investment in some project, or launching a new drug. Though utilitarianism is a popular ethical theory, it has several pitfalls too. Utilitarian theorists assign values to the benefits and harms derived from one set of actions and then compare the values that may arise through another set of action. But, often, it is not possible to measure or compare the values of benefits that may accrue from our actions.

There are so many intangibles that are involved while attempting to measure the values of our so called moralistic actions. It is not possible to measure and compare the value of money with that of time, human dignity or for that matter human life (Andre and Velasquez 2010). Utilitarian ethicist believe that moral decisions need to be taken based on benefit or burden to the society; however, such decisions may be unjust to many. Genetics is an emerging medical science and the issues pertaining to the mandatory testing with regard to the certain genetic disorders may raise several ethical questions.

The proponents of utilitarian ethics would favor genetic screening in identifying disorders, which has its roots in the genetics. Many attempts have been made in the past to make genetic screening a mandatory requirement and that is likely to trigger new issues that would have much deeper implications. Fulda and Lykens (2006) raise the pertinent ethical issues while discussing the case of a 55 year old female dialysis patient. She was identified with a genetic disorder called autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD).

On screening, her four sons were also identified as carriers of this genetic disorder. The consequences that followed thereafter are worthy of elaboration. Her eldest son developed symptoms of ADPKD at the age of 32 and he committed suicide. Her second son divorced his wife when he was at age 30 so as not to burden her and to keep off from having a family. Surprising, he did not have any complication until he turned 54. At the early age of 25, her third son left his fiancee for likely health issues in future due to this genetic abnormality.

At age 21, her youngest son who also got identified as a carrier of ADPKD, left his education and never married. This chap did not experience any symptoms until the last reporting. This implies that after knowing about a genetic disorder people tend to make radical decisions disrupting peace and harmony in their life. The pertinent question is that each family member had the right not to undergo screening. In the event not knowing anything about the disease, it is quite possible that her eldest son might not have committed suicide.

Her second son might not have considered giving divorce to his wife living happily with her until rest of the life. It is certain that after knowing about the disease, family went through a great turmoil. It is again pertinent to note here that though genetic screening did inform the members about the possible outcomes yet actual outcomes were different as third and fourth sons did not have any complications. If genetic screening is made mandatory across population, it is likely to play havoc in the society.

Utilitarian ethicists’ viewpoints fall short of understanding and solving current environmental issues that world is facing today. Rolston (1991) argues that humanist ethics cannot be applied to environment. All utilitarian philosophy is focused on human welfare but that is very parochial perspective. Utilitarian ethicists look at only instrumental value from the human angle but in nature everything has its own intrinsic value and that also needs to be preserved. Utilitarian ethicists have so far tried to understand and solve the issues such as global warming, pollution, environment keeping humans in mind; however, there are nonhuman objects of duty too.

The degradation of the environment is much bigger a threat to the entire world and now the time has come to think in terms of ecosystems that are nature’s way of life. Thus, integrating utilitarian ethics with environmental ethics is a need of the hour if life has to flourish on this planet for a long time. References Andre, C., Velasquez, M. (2010), Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics, retrieved June 2, 2012 from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1/calculating.

html Fulda and Lykens (2006), Ethical issues in predictive genetic testing: a public health perspective, retrieved June 2, 2012 from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564466/ Rolston, H. (1991). "Environmental Ethics: Values in and Duties to the Natural World". The Broken Circle: Ecology, Economics, Ethics. Yale University Press, New Haven, retrieved June 2, 2012 from http://www.ecospherics.net/pages/RolstonEnvEth.html