Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins, sharing a single heart and a pair of lungs. Without intervention, both would die within six months. If separated, Jodie would live, but Mary would die immediately. The parents refused permission to operate, believing it would be wrong to hasten Mary's death. Devout Catholics said that "nature should take its course" and "If it's God's will that both our children should not survive, then so be it." After a court intervention, the operation was performed over the parents' objection, and as expected, Jodie lived, and Mary died.
For this discussion, we will assume that Jodie can go on to live a normal life. This is not a case where Jodie's death would not harm her.
Utilitarians are consequentialists, and consequentialism is a hotly debated idea among moral philosophers. The idea that we should always act to bring about the best outcome is lovely, but many have found it very objectionable. For example, Kantians are anti-consequentialists and would argue in this case that it is always wrong to sacrifice the life of one to save the life of another. Many virtue ethicists also argue that consequentialists' pursuit of pleasure violates the telos of individual humans. Still, other virtue ethicists may appeal to the doctrine of double effect.
Nonetheless, we will be concerned with which course of action would be right, not with who has the right to decide. Plausibly, the parents had that right, and the court violated it. But we can still ask:
Respond to one of the following prompts:
- Contrast what a Kantian would say and what a divine command theorist would say is the morally right thing to do in this case. Use the core principles of Kantian ethics (universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity) and the core principles of divine using the core principles of divine command ethics (goodness, relationship to God(s), and natural law) to explain the difference between how they would conclude what the right thing to do in this case is. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLO 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
- Contrast what a Kantian would say and what a virtue ethicist would say is the morally right thing to do in this case. Use the core principles of Kantian ethics (universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity) and the core principles of virtue ethics (telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom) to explain the difference between how they would conclude the right thing to do in this case. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLO 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)