Utilitarian Case Study
There is a large number of patients requiring organ transplants but very few organs available for these patients. This results in a moral crisis for doctors and surgeons who have to decide the patient who will receive the organ as well as a justification for the choice. As a utilitarian, I have to choose between three patients who all need a liver to survive. The central basis of utilitarianism is the idea that the action that is morally right is the action that leads to the most good, a form of consequentialism, that the right action is determined based on the results. As the lead surgeon managing the liver transplant, I choose to give the liver to the first patient, since I believe that will result in greater good for the whole society.
Transplantation is morally good since it saves lives. According to Mill, ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness’ (Brink, 2018). I believe that transplanting the liver to the first patient would produce the most happiness for the individual, myself, and more people. The first patient, in this case, has a family that probably depends on him for sustenance. The teenage children will be happy to see their father as will the wife. Further, Francis is the leader of a credit union that probably needs his direction more than ever. If such a union were to fail, it would produce the opposite of happiness for very many people that depend on the union. Although the patient was a drunk, and may probably relapse again, it is likely that when he is healed, he will bring happiness to his family as well as many more families that depend on the credit union led by Francis. I would, therefore, give the liver to patient A.
While Mills argues that happiness is the goal of all utility, he also admits that utilitarianism is a standard of conduct but not a procedure for making decisions. As such, Mills argues that moral reasoning requires to be subject to other principles like ‘fidelity, fair play, and honesty’ (Brink, 2018). Such secondary principles should be applied if they do not go against the utility or lead to inferior consequences. Principles of honesty and fairness, as well as fidelity, make it difficult for me as a doctor to choose the second patient as the recipient. The fact that the patient’s father is rich and will donate to the hospital is a sought of corruption that goes against my values of honesty and fidelity. For this reason, I would, therefore, rule out the second patient. Further, since my happiness is also in question through Mill’s utility theory, I would not be happy knowing that I allowed financial rewards to swing my morals. Internal punishments of guilt exist that would lead to the opposite of happiness for me.
The utility argues that my choice as the lead doctor can be justified by the amount of good that a given choice produces. For the third patient, it is possible that he may be a doctor at some point and cause many people to feel happiness. However, as indicated above, utility is also governed by the rules of fairness. However, the patient is not likely to survive so that the promised happiness is not achieved. Since this fact has been medically determined, patient C may not lead to the happiness that would make him the best choice according to utilitarianism.
References
Brink, D. (2018). Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy, In Edward N. Zalta (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/mill-moral-political/