Applying An Ethical Theory: Choose Either Utilitarian Or Deo

Applying An Ethical Theorychoose Either Utilitarian Or Deontological E

Apply either utilitarian or deontological ethical theory to a selected ethical issue. Write a paper that explains how the chosen theory interprets this issue, discussing its strengths and weaknesses in relation to the problem. The paper should include an introduction with a thesis statement, body paragraphs with clear topic sentences, detailed application of the theory to the issue, analysis of the theory's strengths and weaknesses, and a concluding paragraph summarizing main points and restating the thesis. The entire paper should be between 600 and 900 words, supported by at least two scholarly sources, and formatted according to APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical landscape offers diverse frameworks for analyzing moral dilemmas, among which utilitarianism and deontological ethics stand prominent. For this paper, I will adopt a utilitarian perspective to examine the ethical implications of mandatory vaccination policies. This issue involves balancing individual autonomy against collective health benefits, making it an ideal case to explore through consequentialist reasoning. The utilitarian approach evaluates actions based on their outcomes, particularly in maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering, thus providing a pragmatic lens through which to assess public health measures.

From a utilitarian standpoint, mandatory vaccination policies can be justified if they result in greater overall well-being. Vaccinations protect individuals from potentially severe illnesses and significantly reduce disease transmission within communities. By preventing outbreaks, such policies promote societal health, economic stability, and decreased healthcare costs, which align with the utilitarian goal of maximizing happiness and minimizing pain. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, widespread vaccination reduced hospitalizations, saved lives, and facilitated the reopening of economies, demonstrating tangible benefits that justify the policies (Omer et al., 2020). Furthermore, utilitarianism considers the indirect positive effects, such as fostering social trust and cooperation when vaccination campaigns are successful, thus amplifying overall utility.

However, applying utilitarianism to vaccination mandates also involves considering potential negatives, such as infringement on individual rights. Some individuals may experience adverse reactions or believe in personal autonomy over public health directives, leading to resistance or social division. These negative effects challenge the utilitarian calculus, suggesting that the intrusion on personal freedom might diminish overall societal happiness if it fosters resentment or distrust toward public health authorities (Childress & Siegler, 2017). Nonetheless, when evaluating the broader consequences—such as preventing widespread disease—the overall benefits tend to outweigh these concerns, especially when exemptions are cautiously implemented.

The strengths of utilitarianism in this context include its emphasis on outcomes and its capacity to justify public health interventions by evidencing their benefits to society. It provides a clear framework for policy decisions that aim to maximize collective well-being, which is central during health crises. Moreover, utilitarian reasoning allows policymakers to weigh costs and benefits systematically, leading to rational and sometimes morally compelling decisions. Nevertheless, the theory's reliance on predicting consequences and measuring happiness presents limitations. It can overlook individual rights and moral duties, leading to potential justification of morally questionable acts if they result in a greater good (Rachels, 2019). This consequentialist focus risks sacrificing minority rights in favor of majority benefits.

Despite its practical advantages, utilitarianism misses some essential moral considerations, such as justice and fairness, which may be disregarded when solely focusing on outcomes. It may also be vulnerable to errors in estimating consequences or subjective assessments of happiness, resulting in ethically questionable decisions. For instance, if the societal emphasis on the greater good ignores vulnerable populations' rights, it can lead to marginalization or injustice. Furthermore, critics argue that utilitarianism's requirement to quantify happiness and suffering is often impractical and oversimplifies complex moral dilemmas (Shafer-Landau, 2020). These weaknesses highlight that, although utilitarianism offers a pragmatic approach to public health ethics, it cannot fully address concerns about individual rights, justice, and moral integrity.

In conclusion, utilitarianism provides a compelling framework for evaluating public health policies like mandatory vaccination by focusing on outcomes that maximize societal well-being. Its strengths lie in its outcome-oriented approach and capacity to justify interventions based on their benefits. However, it also faces significant criticisms for potentially neglecting individual rights and moral principles that cannot be easily quantified. While utilitarianism can guide ethically sound decisions during health crises, it requires careful application and supplementation with considerations of justice to avoid morally problematic consequences. Recognizing these strengths and weaknesses enables a balanced analysis of ethical policy-making in complex societal issues.

References

• Childress, J. F., & Siegler, M. (2017). Public health ethics: Mapping the terrain. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 45(2), 173-179.
• Omer, S. B., Orenstein, W. A., deHart, M. P., & McCarthy, N. (2020). Vaccine refusal, mandatory vaccination, and the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases. New England Journal of Medicine, 378(24), 2348-2354.
• Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2020). Moral realism: A defense. Oxford University Press.