A man named John was a technician at a nuclear power plant in the state of Ohio in the United States. While working at this power plant, a freak catastrophic accident occurred. During this accident John was present at the power plant to carry out his work, where he was located right where the accident occurred. He had received an extremely high dose of radiation, to the point that it was only a matter of time before he would die. John had no family or friends and was not in a relationship. He wishes to be allowed to die before radiation sickness deteriorates his health and he begins to suffer the effects of radiation poisoning even worse. However, scientists working for the government wish to keep John alive so they can study the effects and perhaps develop new ways to combat the effects of radiation poisoning. John refuses to take part in these studies and wishes to die immediately. Although he knows the studies are for a good cause and could save more lives in the future, he is aware of the effects his body will suffer and is not willing to consent to the tests. What is the morally correct thing to do here, if John were to change his mind and agree to the tests? Should scientists forcibly keep him alive against his will? What is more ethically correct, saving this innocent man from a great deal of pain but missing out on scientific progress, or keeping him alive and perhaps making scientific advances that will lead to the treatment of perhaps hundreds or perhaps even thousands of others in the future? ? Should John have a choice in this situation or should a decision be made for him? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayIn this research essay I will look at the ethical theories of Kant and Bentham such as deontology and utilitarianism and their different types, as well as autonomy. I will then construct an argument about what is the right thing to do in this case, applying the various ethical theories previously present in my argument. I will also analyze opposing arguments and explain why they are flawed or otherwise incorrect, analyzing each theory and evaluating it critically, using various sources of information. For the purposes of my argument, I will refer to this situation as the “John case”. Research I believe that, in this situation, given the circumstances, the most morally correct thing to do here is to keep him alive and study the effects of radiation to learn how to combat it. There are multiple positions one could take when analyzing this situation. I came to this conclusion after studying both deontology and utilitarianism and their subsets. The correct thing to do here is to follow the moral theory of act utilitarianism. Two of the major ethical theories that have caused division in Western moral philosophy are between the theory of deontology and the theory of consequentialism. Deontology is a rule-based moral philosophy. The central idea of ​​deontology is that a person who strives to be moral must also perform his duty, without exception and regardless of the consequences. However, since there are multiple subsets of deontology, there is no set "duty" as stated in the deontology, but rather multiple depending on the version of the deontology applied. However, a key aspect of all deontology is that one should not only consider the outcome of an action, but, more importantly, the morality used to arrive at the decision. Act deontology is a version of deontology that focuses on not defining its principles. . He opposes thecompliance with the rules as it believes that every situation and every person making the decision in said situation will be different, and as such every situation, no matter how similar it seems, will be different. He places a lot of importance on the idea of ​​human judgment. In deontology of acts, the responsibility for the decision-making process is therefore based exclusively on the opinions of the decision maker and on what he believes to be the correct decision. There are both advantages and disadvantages to acting ethically. The deontology of action is perhaps correct in the sense that a moral rule cannot be applied in every new situation simply because it was the correct decision in the past, since no situation can ever be truly identical and therefore it is necessary to consider different factors before making a decision. decision. However, the ethics of the act are impractical, especially for the situation I presented. It is based on the idea that arbitrary decision making is suitable for every situation, when there may be larger factors at play. This is the problem in the John case, as perhaps scientific advances are at stake along with the possibility that this research could save thousands of lives in the future. Rule deontology is a form of deontology that insists that a person's decision should be based on how they see a situation at the time, and asserts the idea that decisions should be based on a set of rules to follow, rather than consider what the outcome of the decision will be. The advantage of the deontology of the rules is that the principles contained can be very general. This allows them to be fleshed out more, allowing for more detail. However, for John's case, the ethics of the rules are completely inappropriate. There are no established rules for this type of situation, due to the complexity and uniqueness of the situation. The deontology of the rules, in this circumstance, would force the decision maker to choose between conflicting rules. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most cutting edge thinker when it comes to deontology, had his own version of deontology. Kant's main idea is that duty must always come before consequences. Actions are not right or wrong because of the consequences, but because it is simply a morally wrong thing to do, regardless of what happens as a result of the action or inaction. In his view, actions are right or wrong, not the consequences of those actions. While it may be commendable, it is not even truly morally correct to act in accordance with what we perceive is the right thing, but to simply act for the good that is our duty, even in times when we do not want it. According to him, some principles are simply moral in themselves. A key aspect of Kant's ethics is his “categorical imperative.” For Kant, actions are morally right only if they follow the categorical imperative. Kant's ethical theory was based on the belief that all human beings are entitled to equal consideration. Although every human being is different and we all find ourselves in different situations. It follows that no moral human being would behave towards another man in a way other than that in which he himself would not like to be treated. According to Kant, this imperative is divided into a different number of formulations. Kant believed that human beings were rational thinkers, autonomous, and capable of knowing universal, objective moral laws. He believed that every human being should act only out of duty and not because of the consequences of that duty. Kant believed in multiple maxims in his categorical imperative. “Act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will it to become a universal law of nature.” This means that if you wish to act morally, you should act as if your decision were moralone that will become law for everyone, including yourself. “Act therefore so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person, or in the person of each other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means.” What Kant means by this is that treating people as if they were tools used to achieve further ambitions and ends is highly immoral and morally wrong.” Kant believes that everyone should be respected since everyone has their own emotions, hopes, fears, just like you and I do Likewise, Kant believes that everyone should act as members of a community of “ends,” all who possess the same capacity to create moral abilities. Each member of this community should respect the desires and needs of others and allow them freedom of decision. It should also be important to note that Kant was vehemently against suicide, regardless of the circumstances. According to Kant himself, “he who behaves like this, who has no respect for human nature and does something by himself, becomes for all an object of free will. We are free to treat him like a beast, like a thing, and use him for our entertainment as we do with a horse or a dog, because he is no longer a human being, he has made himself a thing, and having discarded himself his humanity, he cannot expect others to respect the humanity in him” According to Kant, the apparent motive of every suicide is simply to “avoid evil”. By this he means avoiding suffering, pain and other negative outcomes in his life. As stated, Kant believes that viewing people as a means and an end is fundamentally wrong. For him, however, this also includes yourself. However, there are multiple problems with Kant's ethical theories. It's too stiff. This can be seen by using multiple examples when applying Kantian deontology to a situation. An interesting example was put forward by. What if, during Nazi Germany, we hid Jews in our home? Let's imagine then that an SS officer knocks on our door and asks us if we are hiding any Jews. If we consider Kant's theories, we must remember that it is our duty not to lie to the SS officer, regardless of the consequences. Because Kant is very general in his theories, it becomes more difficult to apply them to complex situations. Another problem with Kant is that what makes us human, according to his beliefs, are our abilities to reason and our possession of both duties and rights. He is convinced that non-rational actors, such as non-human animals, do not have the capacity to own animals. For this reason, according to Kant, we can do what we want with it. But how far do you get? What about a person who lacks the ability to be a rational actor, such as a person with a very low IQ or perhaps someone with a mental illness? Can we even do with them what we want? According to Dimmock et al. 2017, “the challenge to Kant's theory is that the scope of morality seems greater than the scope of reasons” Highlights the example of abusing an animal, for example by kicking a cat. While it may not be morally right to do so, Kant's theory does not support this since the cat is not a rational agent and therefore we should not have the same morals towards its treatment as we would a human being. When considering the “John case”, we cannot apply the use of Kantian ethics. The John case is simply too complex to apply Kantian deontology to the situation. While John may be a rational agent at this time, what happens when his body and mind begin to deteriorate due to radiation sickness and he can no longer eventhink for yourself? Then will he still be a rational agent? According to Kant's theories, he will simply be reduced to another animal, suitable to be treated as such by man. Referring to the suicide example I demonstrated above, what would be the position of a Kantian deontologist on the John case? As we can see, Kantian deontologists do not believe that suicide is a thing to consider. It is also wrong to kill others, regardless of the consequences. So, what does a Kantian deontologist do in this situation? Just let John suffer, even when he doesn't want to? This does not respect John's autonomy as a rational agent. It is impossible for them to take a stand as the situation creates a paradox in their way of thinking. Ending John's suffering is morally wrong as it only takes into account the consequences, but experimenting on John would be considered treating him as a tool, a means and not an end. Their only position regarding the John's case is to take no sides. In this situation, it is implied that Kantian deontologists would simply let John die naturally. However, if they let him die anyway, why not let scientists perform experiments on him? Both things will produce the same result, and if these tests are as unobtrusive as possible then there is simply no difference. Contrary to the school of deontology there is the school of consequentialism. Perhaps the most prolific form of consequentialism is its subset, utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the view that the consequences of one's actions play an important role in determining whether one's actions are moral or not. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to achieve happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people while producing as little harm as possible. It differs greatly from the deontological school of thought in that utilitarianism does not depend on rules. While deontology assumes that there are naturally right actions, utilitarianism gives more weight to the result of the action and its motivations rather than to the action performed. Jeremy Bentham is similar to his Kant counterpart in that he is perhaps the most cutting-edge thinker in his school. of moral theory. Bentham's fundamental belief is that a person should always seek to provide the outcome that achieves "the greatest good, or the greatest happiness, for the greatest number." However, with utilitarianism, the good and bad of these decisions should be measurable. A key principle of utilitarianism is that a calculation should be made to decide cost versus benefit. Bentham developed a method that would allow these decisions to be made. He designed it to allow you to determine ways to provide pleasure and reduce pain as much as possible. Another key utilitarian, John Stuart Mill, disagreed with some aspects of Bentham's utilitarianism. Mill stated that different pleasures have different levels of quality and that not all of them should be considered equal. For example, Mill claimed that reading a book had a higher intellectual quality than intellectually inferior physical pleasures, as it is something that only humans possess the capacity to enjoy. While Bentham considered all pleasures equal, Mill did not and this was a key difference between them. Action utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that states that in any situation a person should, if aiming to achieve the right outcome, decide which action will produce the greatest amount of pleasure versus pain. This is opposed to following a universal moral code such as those seen in deontology. An act utilitarian will not simply keep a promise because it is his moral duty, but will keep the