Don't worry, I already turned this in - I'm not asking anybody to do my homework for me here. It's pretty rare that I have to write essays these days and I'm just curious if I've lost my knack for emulating knowledge of material through the crafty mixture of a thesaurus, ample quantities of caffeine, and a blaring TV in the background. By the way, this is a transfer basic course I'm taking at a Juco school for transfer towards a Bachelor degree at another university. Thanks...
3. Imagine you are a doctor and one of your patients is terminally ill. You can tell the patient that everything will be okay and the patient and his or her family may have a few more months of happy life. On the other hand, if you give no hope to the patient, it may cause great suffering for the patient and the patient's family. What should you do according to Utilitarianism (Mill), deontology (Kant), and virtue ethics (Aristotle)? You should give the answer from each perspective. One answer for all three will not be acceptable.
For this essay, I will opt to attempt an answer for question number three.
The ultimate goal of all human life is the obtainment of lasting happiness. Yet what seems such a simple goal is impacted by an infinite number of factors and other life, each searching, interacting, and affecting other humans in search of their own happiness. What brings one man joy may bring about great sorrow in another. Still, often we act with disregard, sometimes innocent and unintentional, sometimes intentionally and malicious, to the perpetual impact of our personal journeys on the road of happiness. Still, at the end of it all, I suspect most men ultimately have good will in their hearts, and when it is not terribly inconveniencing, will take efforts of their own will to bring about happiness in others, even if it may not aid their own underlying personal need for a similar happiness or even hinder steps towards it. What constitutes happiness in our lives is ever-changing. Even a happiness gained through much hardship (be it a long-unrequited love or otherwise expensive possession may in time, be the source of much distress. Happiness for many is viewed as the great final answer to the question of 'why do we suffer so in this life'. Happiness is, at least for us silly mortals, a paradoxical concept - it is nothing without the sadness and pain that precludes its obtainment and its value is swiftly forgotten if not for the pain and longing again felt upon its inevitable loss. No great happiness is meant to last, for it is in this loss that we can truly appreciate it and say 'truly those were my happier days' and know that we do not use the word laxly.
Needless to say, my little rant above is but one man's opinion in a field where many exist. Happiness is indeed a broad topic - from Aristotle's views on virtue ethics, Immanuel Kant's belief in the infallibility of "good will", to John Stuart Mill's support for utilitarianism and the good of the many over that of the few...or one (that's the only Spock rip, I promise). For this essay, I will compare those three viewpoints via a hypothetical real-life situation: a doctor stands before a patient whose ailment is terminal and irreversible. His options are obvious either tell the patient the truth, no doubt causing his or her family great pain, or say nothing and merely comfort and reassure the patient as both he/she and respective family continue to hold out for hope. What would their beliefs conclude is the right course of action for the sake of a happier life, limited though it may be for our poor hypothetical patient?
To Aristotle, each man is a good judge of that in which he excels and will know the right choice to make in pursuit of the greater good. And while Aristotle preaches the virtues of great personal growth and moral commitment for the obtainment of happiness, he also felt that the purpose of all action is in the name of happiness, both internally and directed towards others. Truly, as Aristotle believed happiness to be one of Gods gifts to men, we must then be ourselves godly in nature and tribute by telling the patient that which would make him the happiest. That is, continue to give him hope, even if it is technically in vein.
I have a difficult time determining what Kant would wish for in this situation. By his nature as a proponent of deontology, he is bound by statues of duties and rights. Yet what are the parameters of those duties and rights in this case? Not being concerned with the outcome of an action, but merely the virtue of the volition, I suspect Kant would say that the truth is a constant gesture of good will and that by its virtue alone it is good and a source of happiness. For Kant, happiness seems more procedural and constant, and less susceptible to the whim of individual need. While this may seem cold an distant, who are we to say that telling the patient the truth would not benefit him/her more? Perhaps it would allow them to come to terms with their fate in a desire peaceful matter. Perhaps it would motivate them to fight for hope all the more. Perhaps it could cause them to yank their life support plug out of the wall. Again, happiness is so subjective.
For Mills, true happiness is that which serves the greatest good for the greatest number. Sort of a combination of hope and pragmatism, I suppose. This very definition of utilitarianism dictates that the doctor should sacrifice any opposition he may have to the act and do that which makes the larger entity, that is, the patient and family, the happiest. In all likelihood, this would be to not tell them of the patients fate.
3. Imagine you are a doctor and one of your patients is terminally ill. You can tell the patient that everything will be okay and the patient and his or her family may have a few more months of happy life. On the other hand, if you give no hope to the patient, it may cause great suffering for the patient and the patient's family. What should you do according to Utilitarianism (Mill), deontology (Kant), and virtue ethics (Aristotle)? You should give the answer from each perspective. One answer for all three will not be acceptable.
For this essay, I will opt to attempt an answer for question number three.
The ultimate goal of all human life is the obtainment of lasting happiness. Yet what seems such a simple goal is impacted by an infinite number of factors and other life, each searching, interacting, and affecting other humans in search of their own happiness. What brings one man joy may bring about great sorrow in another. Still, often we act with disregard, sometimes innocent and unintentional, sometimes intentionally and malicious, to the perpetual impact of our personal journeys on the road of happiness. Still, at the end of it all, I suspect most men ultimately have good will in their hearts, and when it is not terribly inconveniencing, will take efforts of their own will to bring about happiness in others, even if it may not aid their own underlying personal need for a similar happiness or even hinder steps towards it. What constitutes happiness in our lives is ever-changing. Even a happiness gained through much hardship (be it a long-unrequited love or otherwise expensive possession may in time, be the source of much distress. Happiness for many is viewed as the great final answer to the question of 'why do we suffer so in this life'. Happiness is, at least for us silly mortals, a paradoxical concept - it is nothing without the sadness and pain that precludes its obtainment and its value is swiftly forgotten if not for the pain and longing again felt upon its inevitable loss. No great happiness is meant to last, for it is in this loss that we can truly appreciate it and say 'truly those were my happier days' and know that we do not use the word laxly.
Needless to say, my little rant above is but one man's opinion in a field where many exist. Happiness is indeed a broad topic - from Aristotle's views on virtue ethics, Immanuel Kant's belief in the infallibility of "good will", to John Stuart Mill's support for utilitarianism and the good of the many over that of the few...or one (that's the only Spock rip, I promise). For this essay, I will compare those three viewpoints via a hypothetical real-life situation: a doctor stands before a patient whose ailment is terminal and irreversible. His options are obvious either tell the patient the truth, no doubt causing his or her family great pain, or say nothing and merely comfort and reassure the patient as both he/she and respective family continue to hold out for hope. What would their beliefs conclude is the right course of action for the sake of a happier life, limited though it may be for our poor hypothetical patient?
To Aristotle, each man is a good judge of that in which he excels and will know the right choice to make in pursuit of the greater good. And while Aristotle preaches the virtues of great personal growth and moral commitment for the obtainment of happiness, he also felt that the purpose of all action is in the name of happiness, both internally and directed towards others. Truly, as Aristotle believed happiness to be one of Gods gifts to men, we must then be ourselves godly in nature and tribute by telling the patient that which would make him the happiest. That is, continue to give him hope, even if it is technically in vein.
I have a difficult time determining what Kant would wish for in this situation. By his nature as a proponent of deontology, he is bound by statues of duties and rights. Yet what are the parameters of those duties and rights in this case? Not being concerned with the outcome of an action, but merely the virtue of the volition, I suspect Kant would say that the truth is a constant gesture of good will and that by its virtue alone it is good and a source of happiness. For Kant, happiness seems more procedural and constant, and less susceptible to the whim of individual need. While this may seem cold an distant, who are we to say that telling the patient the truth would not benefit him/her more? Perhaps it would allow them to come to terms with their fate in a desire peaceful matter. Perhaps it would motivate them to fight for hope all the more. Perhaps it could cause them to yank their life support plug out of the wall. Again, happiness is so subjective.
For Mills, true happiness is that which serves the greatest good for the greatest number. Sort of a combination of hope and pragmatism, I suppose. This very definition of utilitarianism dictates that the doctor should sacrifice any opposition he may have to the act and do that which makes the larger entity, that is, the patient and family, the happiest. In all likelihood, this would be to not tell them of the patients fate.
