Introduction to Philosophy : What Should I Do - Essay Example

?Henry Nabea # Introduction to Philosophy 15 Dec. What Should I Do? Introduction In Ethics, the answer to the question of what, actually, determines the morality of an action has given rise to various theories of Ethics. Some of the common theories of Ethics are Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics theory, Emmanuel Kant’s Deontology, and Bentham and Mills Utilitarianism. The main difference in these theories lies in the different conceptions of what, actually, determines the morality of an action, and ethicists takes different positions in this regard. And in deciding what to do in a given controversial, ethical issue, the ethicists apply the theories of ethics, depending on the theory that one has adopted as the tool for analysing ethical issues , to the particular controversial issue. This paper, therefore, analyzes one such controversial, ethical issue by applying these three main theories of Ethics. The particular issue analyzed in the paper is found in the article ‘’Genes Now Tell Doctors Secrets They can’t Utter’’, by Gina Kolata’s. But before the analysis of the article, a detailed explanation of each of the theories is given. The paper ends with a personal conclusion, drawn from the analysis of the article. Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics According to this theory of Ethics propounded by Aristotle, the sole determinant of the morality of an action is the doer of the action himself/herself. The theory holds that the character formation of the doer of the act determines whether the act that the person does is morally right or not. A good character in a person is formed through constant habituation to good or virtuous acts (Nicomachean Ethics, book 11, chapter 1). On the other hand, a bad character in a person is formed through habituation to bad or vicious acts. When a person with a good character, a virtuous person, acts, their actions flow from the good character, and therefore, the actions are always virtuous/morally right. When a vicious person, a person with bad character, acts on the other hand, their actions flow from their bad character and the actions, therefore, are vicious/morally wrong. In moral dilemmas, a virtuous person would spontaneously choose what is morally right, through the help of their good character. Immanuel Kant’s Deontology According to this theory, the morality of an action is determined, solely, by the act itself. The theory divides human acts into good acts, and bad acts, and holds that whenever a bad act is committed, the act is morally wrong irrespective of the character formation of the doer of the act, the prevailing circumstances, or the objectives of the action ( Rickaby, part 11, chapter 1). According to this theory, a bad act can never be justified under any circumstance. For example since killing another person is a bad act, there is no circumstances under which killing another person, even in self defence, can be justified and regarded as a morally right action. This theory, therefore, is based on the rules, and breaking any of the established rules, irrespective of the circumstances or the intention of the doer of the act, is always regarded as a morally wrong action. Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism As a theory of Ethics, Utilitarianism holds that the morality of an action is determined by the end results of the act. An act is considered morally right if, and only if, it maximizes happiness for the majority number of people. This therefore, means that even if the particular act done causes pain and suffering to a person, or a small group of people, but brings happiness to a majority, then the action is regarded as a morally right action. In this theory therefore, as long as the end of an action brings greater good, then the end will justify the mean and make the action morally right action (Mill, chapter 11). In deciding want to do, therefore, in a moral quandary, we should always choose actions that will result in the greater good to the majority. Analysis of Kolata’s Article using The Three Theories of Ethics In course of their research, medical researchers, more often than not, come across some very important information about their subject’s health, the information which if shared with the subjects of the research or their families would be beneficial to them. But according to the Ethics board rules, that guide the medical researchers, research doctors are not allowed to share any information with the subjects of the research. But should a research doctors find crucial information about the subject of the research, doesn’t he/her have a moral obligation to disclose the information to the subject so as to help them and their families on their health matters? These are the issues that this article raises. Let us apply the three theories of Ethics to the issues raised in this article, and find out which theory is the best to deal with this moral dilemma. Application of Virtue Ethics to The Kolata’s article When in a moral dilemma, the proponents of virtue Ethics contend that, one should be guided by their character, and not established rules in deciding what to do. And in the case of this article, when a medical researcher is faced with the dilemma of whether or not to disclose their discoveries that would be beneficial to the study subjects, the doctor should spontaneously act, guided by their moral character. For example, in the article, we are given a case of a woman who intended to have her breast cut off; for fear that she might have a breast cancer. But after medical research, with the woman as the research subject, the research doctors realized that the woman did not have the breast cancer genes. Should the doctors conceal this important information from her, and let her cut off her healthy breast, or should they disclose the information to her and to her family. In this dilemma, the proponents of Virtue Ethics would say that we shouldn’t be guided by the law in deciding what to do, but by our characters. In this case, the Virtue Ethics would suggest disclosing the information to the research subject, because this is the decision that a virtuous person would take. This is because failing to give the information to the subject might cause harm to the study subject, and in this case, the concealing of the information is a vicious/morally wrong act. Application of Kant’s Deontology to Kolata’s article A proponent of Kant’s Deontology would not have much difficulty in deciding what to do in the ethical dilemmas raised in this article. This is because Deontology, as a theory of Ethics holds that we should always obey the law, and not break it under any circumstance. Breaking the law is always regarded as a bad act, and a morally wrong act. A deontologist therefore, would say that, if the medical ethical board prohibits disclosing of any research findings to the study subjects, then, the information should never be disclosed to the research subjects under any circumstance, irrespective of the good that the information would do to the subject. For example in the case of the woman that intended to have her breast cut off for fear of having a breast cancer, the deontologists would say that the doctors should let the woman have a breast cut off, rather than disclosing any information to her. Application of Bentham and Mill’s Utilitarianism to Kolata’s article The utilitarian principle is to always take action that will result in the maximization of good to the highest number of people. And in the dilemma raised in this article, the proponents of utilitarianism would say that, if disclosing the information by the research doctors to the study subjects would result to the happiness or the good of many people, as opposed to concealing the information, then, the doctors should disclose their important research findings to the research subjects. For example in the article, in the case of the dilemma faced by Dr. Gail Jarvik, whereby in the course of a research unrelated to breast cancer, the doctor discovered breast cancer genes in one of the study subjects, the utilitarian theory would advice the doctor to reveal his findings forthwith to the family members of the study subject, because this would make them to seek preventive measures early, and in this sense the revealing of the research findings would result to a greater good to many people, as opposed to concealing the information. And in this sense the revealing of the research findings would be deemed a morally right action. In conclusion, a look at the analysis of Kolata’s article by the three theories of Ethics shows the strength and weaknesses of each of the theories. The application of Virtue Ethics in the article doesn’t give definitive position that one should take when in a moral dilemma, and it leaves the whole decision to an individual and in this sense, Virtue Ethics fails to give a clear guide on how one ought to act when in a moral dilemma. Kant’s Deontology on the other hand, sticks so much to the rules, such that actor is reduced to the status of a machine, just following the rules strictly, without the possibility of altering it under any circumstance. Utilitarianism weakness seems to be disregarding the good of the minority, in preference to the good of the majority. Each of these theories, therefore, taken singly, seems to be incomplete in making moral judgements. There is a need, therefore, of combining the three theories and coming up with a more holistic system of making moral judgements. And an application of a holistic moral approach to the issues raised in this paper shows that, it is indeed important to reveal important research findings to the study subjects, but the decision to reveal the findings should take into consideration the prevailing rules, and the end results, or the consequences of revealing the results to the study subjects. Also, it is important to help people to develop good characters, as this would later help them in their moral judgments. Works Cited Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics; Aristole; Ethics. ( Robert Crisp, trans). Google books.( n.d). Retrieved on. 15-12-2012. From. http://www.archive.org/details/TheNicomacheanEthics Kolata, G.’’ Genes Now Tell Doctors Secrets Can’t Utter’’.New York Times.Web. 25-08-2012. Retrieved on. 15-12-2012. From. http://search.mywebsearch.com/mywebsearch/redirect.jht Mill, J.S. Utilitarianism.Google Books.( n.d). Retrieved on. 15-12-2012. From. http://archive.org/stream/utilitarianism01mill/utilitarianism01mill_djvu.txt Rickaby, J. Moral Philosophy. Project Gutenberg books.( n.d). Retrieved on. 15-12-2012. From. http://archive.org/stream/moralphilosophy08103gut/7mrph10.txt Read More