Thought Experiments To Explore Kant's And Mill's Moral Frame ✓ Solved

Thought experiments to explore Kant's and Mill's moral frameworks

Pick one discussion prompt below. After you finish the reading assignment, type out your answer. The prompts are designed to help us understand key differences between Kant's Formula of Ends and Mill's Utilitarianism. These thought experiments present highly unethical situations. The interesting question is: Why would it be unethical? What moral values are being violated? If we can figure that out, we can discover something about morality that applies to more realistic situations. Please note the following discussion prompts:

Discussion Prompt 1

1. Thought experiment #1. Imagine a doctor has discovered that a patient has a fatal illness. If the doctor is truthful and tells the patient he is probably going to die, then the patient will become depressed and will increase his chances of dying. But if she lies and tells the patient that the prognosis looks good, then the patient has a very slightly better chance of recovering (although it is still a slim chance). a. Based on the Module 2 reading, what would Kant’s Formula of Ends require the doctor to do? Why? b. Based on the Module 2 reading, what would Mill’s Principle of Utility require the doctor to do? Why? c. If you were the patient, what would you prefer your doctor to do? Why? In your answer, be creative and include different factors that you might not think of at first. What matters is not what you answer, but the reasons you give for your answer and how well you connect your reasons to a moral framework.

Discussion Prompt 2

2. Thought experiment #2. A patient comes in complaining of a bad cold. You give them some treatments and get ready to send them on their way since they are otherwise quite healthy. However, you remember that you have five patients in the other room who desperately need new organs – heart, kidney, lung, pancreas, and intestines. From the patient’s record, you see that the cold patient is a match for all five patients, but the cold patient cannot live without these organs.a. At first glance, what would Kant’s Formula of Ends require you to do, based on the Module 2 reading? Why? b. At first glance, what would Mill’s Principle of Utility require you to do, based on the Module 2 reading? Why? c. This is a classic thought experiment that raises some problems for the Principle of Utility. What are the problems, and how could Mill get around them?

Ways to make your replies interesting and worth-while: share relevant information from personal or professional experience, ask interesting questions, mention the reading, or mention a moral framework, principle, or perspective. By reading the replies you will get a full lesson for that module. This module is designed to help us clarify key points of debate in Biomedical Ethics.

Paper For Above Instructions

The moral implications of Kant's and Mill's frameworks can be deeply assessed through their application to two significant thought experiments centered around crucial ethical dilemmas in a healthcare setting.

Thought Experiment 1

The first thought experiment about the honest doctor and the patient with a fatal illness provides a vital ground to analyze Kant’s Formula of Ends and Mill’s Utilitarianism. Kant’s philosophy is grounded in the principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves and never merely as means to an end (Kant, 1785). In this situation, the ethical choice for the doctor, according to Kant, would be to reveal the truth about the patient’s prognosis. By doing so, the doctor respects the patient’s autonomy and right to make informed decisions about their life. Deceiving the patient would violate their dignity as a person and moral autonomy, even if it might lead to a marginally better chance of recovery (Kant, 1785).

Conversely, Mill’s Principle of Utility would lead the doctor to consider the outcomes and overall happiness or suffering produced by each action (Mill, 1863). According to utilitarianism, if lying to the patient increases their chance for recovery and results in greater overall happiness by perhaps alleviating their despair, then this action could be deemed morally permissible. Thus, Mill’s perspective allows for a more flexible interpretation of morality, calculating actions based on their consequences alone (Mill, 1863).

As a patient, the preference between truth and deception may depend on various factors including personal values and beliefs about autonomy and hope. Some patients might prioritize honesty and the ability to prepare themselves for outcomes, while others may prefer the comfort of false assurances to combat despair. Ultimately, the moral framework chosen has significant implications for the decision made.

Thought Experiment 2

The second thought experiment regarding the patient with a cold and the waiting organ transplant patients presents an even more complex ethical scenario, reflective of a more pressing moral quandary. Kant’s Formula of Ends clearly states that individuals should not be used merely as instruments for others’ ends (Kant, 1785). In this case, sacrificing a healthy patient for organ transplants—essentially treating them as a means to save others—would be categorically impermissible according to Kantian ethics, regardless of the potential benefits gained from such an action.

On the contrary, Mill’s Principle of Utility might lead one to consider the collective happiness produced by sacrificing one life to save five others. This utilitarian calculus would indicate that the doctor should proceed with harvesting the organs, as it maximizes overall happiness (Mill, 1863). However, this instigates a perplexing ethical conundrum: the act of sacrificing one human being to save several creates serious moral implications about individual rights and the value of life.

Critics of utilitarianism assert that this perspective can open the door to morally abhorrent outcomes (Smart & Williams, 1973). Mill could address these objections by introducing a rule utilitarian perspective, wherein certain rules, like the sanctity of life, must be upheld to prevent devastating consequences. In such a way, the principles become aligned with a more humane approach toward moral reasoning. Regardless, this second thought experiment powerfully illustrates the tension between deontological and consequentialist ethics, and their implications for real-world scenarios.

Conclusion

Adding depth to these ethical discussions can illuminate the broader complexities surrounding moral philosophy. Understanding Kant's emphasis on individual rights and dignity versus Mill's focus on utility and outcomes allows for a nuanced appreciation of modern ethical dilemmas faced in health care and beyond. This exploration prompts reflections on how ethics can guide decision-making in difficult situations, helping individuals to navigate the intricate landscape of morality in an informed manner.

References

• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
• Smart, J.J.C. & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
• Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
• Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Nussbaum, M.C. (1995). Poetic Justice: Literary Imagination and Public Life. Beacon Press.
• Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford University Press.
• Frankena, W.K. (1973). Ethics. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
• Rachels, J. (1971). The Element of Moral Philosophy. Random House.