Utilitarian, Virtue and Libertarian Approaches to Conjoined Twins Case - Essay Example

Utilitarian, Virtue and Libertarian Approaches to Conjoined Twins Case The present essay will explore the meaning and differentconcepts of ethical practice. Focusing on a case scenario, different theories of ethics will be outlined. The first section will expose the chosen ethical dilemma and describe the moral complexity of decision making. Later sections will focus on utilitarian and libertarian point of view in chosen case, its positives and negatives. These will be later compared to virtue and veil of ignorance concept. Finally, it will be outlined whether any of those theories could be applied in order to make a decision in presented scenario. According to Catherine Berglund (2007) ethics is “a process of reflection”. Reflecting on what is right and what seems to be wrong. Arguments are looked at and analysed in order to come to a conclusion. It is due to medical ethics, that the right to consent and confidentiality have been identified (Holland, 2007). Ethical decisions are made every day, by every person. Is it right to park on disabled parking space when you rushing your child to the hospital? Or, is it fair to lie to your partner even if you know that it would make him happy? This is just the tip of the moral dilemmas’ iceberg. In December 2011 the conjoined twins Jesus and Emmanuel were born in Brazil; each one have their own head, brain, nervous system, and spine. They share heart, lungs, liver and all lower body organs. Few days before their birth Chilean conjoined twins Maria Paz and Maria Jose were separated followed by the death one of the girl a week later. The question is, should the conjoined twins be separated? Utilitarianism refers to the ethical theory, which postulates that taking an appropriate course of action increases the chances of perfection. Its moral worthiness is based on the consequences of actions (Rawls, 2011). Proponents of this theory are J.S. Mill and Jeremy Bentham. The virtue theory, in this respect, emphasizes on the role of an individual’s character along with such virtues embodied by one’s character in the evaluation and determination of ethical behaviour (Crisp & Slote, 1997). Arguably, the virtue ethics is among the key approaches to the normative ethics, which more often than not is contrasted to deontology (Stephen, 2003). Liberty theory, on the other hand, holds that the fundamental moral concepts are the individual human rights. It holds that rights to be respected are the ONINTERFERENCE rights (Devettere, 2002). Generally, these are categorized under rights to property, to life, and to liberty. In the spirit of liberalism, the proper limit to an individual’s enjoyment of such rights is her or his duty to respect similar rights of other people. A non-interference or negative right is an individual’s legitimate claim, which holds that other individuals should not interfere with her or him in any way. A positive right is the individual’s legitimate claim that society or possibly the government provide her or him with that which he/she requires (Devettere, 2002). Clearly, there are considerable differences in the approaches of the three theories to be applied in this case. Utilitarianism might be considered as an ethical approach that is quantitative and reductionist. It considerably differs from other ethical theories such as deontological ethics, virtue ethics, pragmatic ethics and other consequentiality approaches (Stephen, 2003). While deontological ethics differ from utilitarianism in their disregard for consequantialism, pragmatic, virtue and other consequentiality ethics differ from utilitarianism through their considerable regard of character as an aspect that determines the achievement of pleasurable ethical results. Utilitarianism theory is arguably the greatest principle that allows achieving happiness and felicity. Even so, the practicability of utilitarianism has not been without shortcomings, such as not accounting adequately for moral concepts such as promise and justice. This had prompted some changes in the theory to iron out the shortcomings. When an individual encounters a situation which requires him or her to make a choice, he or she should first hold back, weigh the situation in terms of appropriate choices, considering the consequences of each choice. On determining the choice that will yield the pleasurable outcomes, one can then proceed to take the course of action, and this could be applicable to the conjoined twins case. Utilitarian elements that are presented in the case concern obligations, ethics for common good, action consequences, moral good and conflicting interests. Since this is a decision touching on the right of an individual and on health issues, some models of corporate social responsibility emphasize the primacy of the corporation’s responsibility to stick to survival while making exercising the duty. Other responsibilities, such as abiding by ethical activities that are discretionary, are not a priority. Other approaches hold that ethics should come first, so individuals should consider conforming to ethical and legal standards as the most important aspect. Manuel, Claire, Shanks and Meyer (2011) suggest that utilitarianism can resolve the dilemma. Here, various tests including common good and utility tests may be employed in resolving the dilemma. While applying the Utility Test to the Case, it is proper to make use of the common Good Test. In line with this approach, utilitarian would argue that separating the conjoined twins had a possibility of creating the greatest good for the greatest number (Brooke, 2009). However, the prying question is that what if one of twins was to die and perhaps how could the decision be made in ensuring the resulting the principle of common good is sustained? It is worth noting that both have equal right to the body parts and, however, in the spirit of utilitarian, it matters a great deal which one of them will have the heart and which one would die. On the other hand, libertarian would suggest that we all have equal chances and we have the rights to make decision for ourselves as long as they do not make harm to anybody (Devettere, 2002). Certainly, as is the case, the twins cannot make their own decisions. The decisions are perhaps temporarily in the hands of a third party, however, in few years they would probably both choose to live. This clearly implies that choosing to go by the decision of separation and killing one of them would be against the libertarian view. In a rather contrasting manner, the virtue ethics, suggests that the approach of the dilemma is more appropriate than the conclusion reached (Crisp & Slote, 1997). In this regard, the virtue ethics suggests that one does not focus in any particular decision. But rather considers what the decision to settle on would impacts or say about the moral and the character of whoever makes the decision, in making sure one of the twins survives or in order to preserve their lives until they are of age of making their own decision (Crisp & Slote, 1997). As such, the decision would be derived from the outcome of the case- by-case analysis basing on the factors such as intensions, group benefits (societal), and personal. This shall be done in seeking whether such factors are malevolent or benevolent. This implies that choosing to go by the utilitarian or the libertarian view would be in cross violation of the virtue ethics view especially in the event that the decision is made without considering the moral impact the decision would have in the long run on the individual who undertakes the action. One thing to content with is that a decision has to be made at least taking into consideration the ethics and for the common good to save live. For purposes of common good, according to Brook (2012), the there is need to make sure the specification of the parts of common good that are contested is considered. It is always imperative to question oneself if institutions, social systems and the environment would be compromised by the course of actions to be undertaken. What actions will strengthen them and what actions will weaken them? Second, there is need to revisit the accounts and their premises for the obligation to uphold the common good. As such, one may ask the following questions. What is the obligation of upholding the common good? Will it be an obligation to uphold the common good or will it be done for the sake of not harming those to be affected by the action? As a third step, an inquiry as to whether or not the proposed action conflicts with the obligation or not, Finally, the last stage entails drawing conclusions and determining the course of action. In this case, one may discard or embrace the choice of actions. In this regard, for the common good of the conjoined twins, parts of the common good are as follows. On one hand, there is the desire to adopt the utilitarian and, therefore, save the life of either of the twins. On the other hand, there is the desire to adopt the libertarian view to respect individual decisions and ensure equal chances for the two and, therefore, uphold the libertarian view. In the subsequent stage, it is obvious that it is the fundamental obligation is to adhere to ethics by ensuring that lives are not lost as a result of decision taken. Considering that the decision to go ahead separate the two twins stands to conflict with the obligation of saving the life of one of the twins and cross violating both the virtues view, as well as the libertarian view, it implies that the utility test is likely to lead to undesirable outcomes. It is notable that the decision to incline to obligations can be particularly limiting. However, both libertarian view and the virtues ethics view might yield desirable outcomes, given that they both strives to attain best outcomes, as well as the common good (Brooke, 2009). This means that the only choice left is to desist from conducting an operation as the ultimate course of action and provide room for individual decision afterwards from the two individuals given that this is both for the common good of the two individuals and it, as well maintains the moral value. References Brooke, H., 2009. Utility test: Are we minimizing harm and maximizing good for those affected? Retrieved from http://ebeni.wordpress.com/decisions/theories/consequences/the-utility-test/ Brook, H., 2012. Common good test: How to utilize the common good test. Retrieved from http://ethicsops.com/CommonGood.php. Crisp, R., & Slote, M., 1997. Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Darwall, ed. Devettere, J., 2002. Introduction to Liberty Ethics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Manuel V., Claire, A., Shanks, T., & Meyer, M., 2011. The utilitarian approach to ethics: Calculating consequences. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/supplier.html Rawls, J., 2011. Classical utilitarianism. Retrieved from http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/RAWLSclassicUtil.pdf. Stephen, H., 2003. Virtue Ethics. Oxford: B. Blackwell. Read More