Overview Of Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is one of the consequentialist ethical theories, classified as act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism holds that an individual should act in such a manner that results in the greatest level of good over evil. The action should take into account every one that would be impacted by the action. Ethically speaking, an ethically correct action results in the most pleasure and minimal pain to the greatest number of individuals. Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, asserts that an individual should act based on the rule that, when properly adhered to, would result in the greatest level of good over evil when taking into account everyone that would be impacted by the rule. In utilitarian theory, the interest of everyone is considered equal, irrespective of the relationship to the agent, therefore making it possible to sacrifice a small group of individuals for the greater good and interest of the majority.
Overview Of The Case
The case involves premature twins born at 26. One is healthy, while the other twin has complications of the lung and is suffering from 2 brain haemorrhages. The ethical question in the case is whether to save the life of the baby who faces the risk of complications in future or to end the life of the baby.
Analysis Of The Case Based On Utilitarianism
In this case, it will be inappropriate to end the life of the baby as a mode of preventing the baby from developing future complications and hence, maintaining the baby’s life on the basis of utilitarianism is ethical.
When analysing an action based on utilitarianism, there must be tangible and proven evidence that a specific action will lead to the general good rather than harm to a large number of people. In the case of the newly born baby, the proposition to terminate his life is based on assumptions that he will develop complications in future, but in reality, there is no tangible evidence that the condition is incurable and that the child could develop problems in future. In this case, it would be injustice to terminate the life of the child based on assumption as there is no evidence that his survival would cause more harm than good. Further, terminating the life of the child may be assumed to save the suffering of the child, who is just one individual, but the emotional suffering of others, including the parents and his twin brother, who may know about the situation later in life, is greater and hence the decision to terminate life can be considered as unethical. As such, maintaining the life of the child is more ethical as it will reduce suffering from family members and other related parties that could have been incurred in the termination of the child’s life.
In conclusion, utilitarianism strives to enhance the common good and reduce suffering. As such, it is imperative to measure the benefits and harm of the action to the majority such that if the benefits supersede the harm, then the action should be upheld. Therefore, saving the child’s life would alleviate emotional suffering from the family members, who are a majority, rather than terminating the life of the child, which would minimise the suffering of the child, who is just an individual.
