This covers the moral theories of Mill’s utilitarianism, Kant’s deontology, and
ID: 3498959 • Letter: T
Question
This covers the moral theories of Mill’s utilitarianism, Kant’s deontology, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics. Solve each of the following dilemmas using one of the following theories: Mill's utilitarianism, Kant's deontology, or Aristotle's virtue ethics. Explain the different aspects of the theory you are using, and clearly show how that theory prescribes a certain action for the person involved in the dilemma. Be as thorough and complete as possible. Remember, this is not a test of your opinion; it is a test of correct application of moral theories. You must give a precise answer to the bolded questions at the end of each passage. Once you have used a moral theory, you cannot use it again. By the end of this, you should have used all three theories once. If you use utilitarianism to solve the first dilemma, you must use either deontology or virtue ethics to solve the second dilemma, and the remaining theory to solve the last dilemma. There is NO "correct" theory to use for a particular dilemma; that decision is entirely up to you. You may find it easier to use a particular theory for a particular dilemma, and if so, do so. You DO NOT need to explain why you have chosen to use that particular theory.
1. You are the last hope for a distant relative who urgently needs a bone-marrow donation. The relative has sought out every other available way to get a bone-marrow donation, but no other option exists. You are the only known compatible person who is a match for a bone-marrow donation. Without your donation, the relative will die within the month. You have met the relative at a couple of family reunions, but are not close to the person. The relative seems nice enough, and is roughly the same age as you. There is a 20% chance you won't survive the operation, but an 80% chance you will survive the operation. The odds for your relative's survival of the operation are unclear, but without the donation, there is a 100% chance the relative will die within 30 days. Do you agree to the donation? (Remember to use one of the three moral theories acceptable to solve this dilemma.)
2. Kevin’s mother and father are divorced. Kevin is eight, and he lives with his father, John, for three months every summer. The rest of the time, except for occasional weekends, he lives two hundred miles away with his mother. John is the one with the problem: He and Kevin talked a lot last summer about getting a dog. For the first time, John is living in a house that has a backyard big enough to keep a dog and a fence around it as well. John had always used the “no place to keep it” line to avoid making promises, but that no longer applies. John finally promised to get Kevin a dog at the beginning of the next summer, and he knows Kevin is hoping to get one. In fact, John knows that Kevin is expecting a dog with enough confidence that Kevin will be very disappointed if he doesn’t get one, even though he may not say much about it. Furthermore, not getting a dog will deprive both Kevin and John of considerable pleasure, since John knows how happy it would make his son to get one. But the danger of having a dog around is that John lives alone during most of the year, and having a dog means being responsible for another creature. When John travels, as his job requires him to do from time to time, who will look after the dog? He can’t leave it with a friend for a week or two at a time. And he has no neighbors close by who could look after it, and Kevin's mother is very allergic to dogs, so the dog cannot live with Kevin and his mother for any period of time at all. It looks like a difficult trade-off: Three months a year of pleasure for John, Kevin, and a dog, balanced against what might be nine months a year of frequent unpleasantness for both John and the dog. What should John do? (Remember to use one of the three moral theories acceptable to solve this dilemma.)
Explanation / Answer
1. I would not agree to the donation, based on reasoning from Kant’s deontological perspective. Donating my bone as it violates Kant's concept of duty of self-preservation.
2. John should use the principles of utilitarianism and come to the conclusion to not get a dog home. This is because the decision comes with greater amounts of pain, rather than pleasure.