Introduction
The suggestion that each of the three philosophers, Kant,
Mill and Aristotle, would have made to the doctors would largely resonate with
any of the ethical theories that one would identify any of them with today
(Betzler, 2008). Thus, Kant would easily make a decision resonating with
deontological ethics just as Mill would take a utilitarian perspective while
Aristotle would most likely recommend a decision in line with virtue ethics.
Kant
To begin with, Kant would flatly speak against the
doctors accepting the position in prison hospitals. At the core of Kantian
ethics is the concept of autonomy. It is reflected in a variant of his idea of
the categorical imperative where his theory demands that people act in such a
way that their will should be made the universal law (Betzler, 2008). The very
act of becoming a doctor is autonomous and it is very doubtful that a person
who has already become a doctor autonomously would want some government to
dictate how they direct their profession. Kantian approach to ethical decision
making is more to do with setting out rules which are then followed one set no
matter their consequences. The formation
of those rules must, however, be in such a way that one would wish that most
people would accept them as universal. The manner in which Nazi era scientists who
accepted to serve against their will does not suggest a situation where most
people would have wanted such decisions to be a universal law for doctors.
Mill
Mill would have most likely told the doctors to accept
the position within the prison ethics. He falls within the broader
consequentialist ethical theory where analysis is more concerned with the
consequences of an action. Furthermore, utilitarianism which is the specific
ethical tool that Mill would have used encourages actions whose consequences
amounts to the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. The benefit
in this case would be the medical care that many of the prisoners who would
have otherwise gone without any would receive if a doctor accepts to work in
the hospital. Utilitarianism in the sense conceived by Mill does not factor the
consequences to the actor but to the greater society. It calls of a high level
of stoicism. Thus, Mill would not be telling a doctor to accept the position as
a way for the latter to save his or her life.
Aristotle
Aristotle would have made a recommendation similar to
Mill by encouraging a doctor from accepting the position. His ethical decision criterion
which is called virtue ethics directs the ethical analysis at the agent
(Betzler, 2008). According to this theory, the issue would have been reduced to
what a person of virtue person would do in the situation. Most people would
identify the trait of saving lives as one of the traits of people with virtue
and a virtuous Nazi doctor would have accepted the position to save the many
prisoners who were in dire need of medical care. Again, personal benefit will
not be their concern.
Elimination of some for the betterment of all
Mill’s utilitarianism would easily justify the above
statement. A theory that is committed to the greatest benefit for the greatest
number of people can find a reason to rationalize eliminating some if doing so
would bring greater benefit to those in the majority who remains.
Conclusion
I would mostly have accepted a position in the prison
hospitals. My reason would partly be grounded on personal safety and partly on
the need to safe lives. I am an ethical pragmatist and a doctor living even for
one more day is worth much more to humanity that sticking to some rigid ethical
rules when the situation renders that rule irrelevant.
Reference
Betzler,M. (2008). Kant’s
Ethics of Virtue.Berlin: Hubert& Co.
0 comments:
Post a Comment