A man named John was a technician at a nuclear power plant in the state of Ohio, USA. While working at this power plant, a catastrophic accident occurred. During this accident, John was present at the power plant carrying out his work, where he was right at the source of where the accident occurred. He had received an extremely high dose of radiation, so much so that it was only a matter of time before he died. John had no family or friends and was not in a relationship. He wishes he could die before radiation sickness deteriorates his health and he begins to suffer even more from the effects of the radiation poisoning. However, scientists working for the government want 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 participate in these studies and wishes to die immediately. Even though he knows the studies are for a good cause and could save other lives in the future, he is aware of the effects his body will experience and is unwilling to consent to the tests. What is the morally correct thing to do here? Should John change his mind and consent to the tests? Should scientists forcibly keep him alive against his will? Which is more ethically correct, saving this innocent man from a lot of suffering but losing scientific advances, or keeping him alive and perhaps making scientific advances that will lead to the treatment of hundreds or even thousands of people? others in the future. ? Should we give John a choice in this situation or should we make a decision for him? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay In this research essay, I will examine 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 the right thing to do in this case, applying the different ethical theories presented earlier in my argument. I will also break down the opposing arguments and explain why they are wrong or incorrect by analyzing each theory and critically evaluating them, using various sources of information. For the sake of my argument, I will call this situation 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 in order to learn how to combat them. There are several positions that one can take to analyze this situation. I came to this conclusion after studying both deontology and utilitarianism, as well as their subsets. The right thing to do here is to follow the moral theory of act utilitarianism. Two of the main ethical theories that have caused divisions in Western moral philosophy lie between the theory of deontology and the theory of consequentialism. Ethics is a rules-based moral philosophy. The central idea of ​​ethics is that a person who strives to be moral must also fulfill his duty, without any exceptions and regardless of the consequences. However, as there are several subsets of ethics, there is no single “duty” as referenced in ethics, but rather several subsets depending on the version of ethics applied. However, a key aspect of any ethics is that one must not only consider the outcome of an action, but, more importantly, themorality used to arrive at the decision. Act ethics is a version of ethics that focuses on not defining its principles. . He is against following rules because he believes that every situation and every person making the decision in that situation will be different and, therefore, every situation, no matter how similar it may seem, will be different. This places great emphasis on the idea of ​​human judgment. In professional ethics, the responsibility for decision-making therefore rests solely on the opinions of the decision-maker and on what he considers to be the right decision. There are both advantages and disadvantages to acting ethically. The ethics of the act may be correct to the extent that a moral rule cannot be applied to each new situation simply because it was the right decision in the past, because no two situations can ever be truly the same and Therefore, different factors need to be considered before making a decision. However, the ethics of the act are not practical, especially for the situation I mentioned. It is based on the idea that arbitrary decision making is tailored to each situation, where larger factors may be at play. This is the problem in John's case, because perhaps there is scientific progress in game as well as the possibility that this research could save thousands of lives in the future. Rule ethics is a form of ethics that emphasizes that a person's decision should be based on how he or she views a situation at that moment, and it affirms the idea that decisions should be based on a set of rules to follow, rather than considering what the outcome of the decision is. The advantage of rule deontology is that the principles contained can be very general. This helps flesh them out further, allowing for more detail. However, in 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. In this case, the ethics of rules would force the decision-maker to choose between contradictory rules. Immanuel Kant, perhaps the most forward-thinking thinker on ethics, had his own version of ethics. Kant's main idea is that duty must always precede consequences. Actions are not right or wrong because of the consequences, but because it is simply a morally incorrect thing to do, regardless of what happens as a result of the action or inaction. According to him, it is the actions that are good or bad, and not the consequences of these actions. While this may be laudable, it is not really morally correct to act in accordance with what we perceive to be the right thing, but to act simply because it is our duty, even when we do not wish to do so. . According to him, some principles are simply moral in themselves. A key facet of Kant's ethics is his "categorical imperative." For Kant, actions are only morally right 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 act towards another human in a way in which he or she would not like to be treated. According to Kant, this imperative is divided into a different number of formulations. Kant believed that humans were rational, autonomous thinkers capable of knowing universal and objective moral laws. He believed that every human being should act only out of duty and not because of consequencesof said duty. Kant believed in multiple maxims in his categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law of nature.” » This means that if you want to act morally, you must act as if your moral decision is what will become the law for everyone, including yourself. “Act, then, in a way that treats humanity, both in yourself and in the person. of all the others, 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 are tools used to pursue one's ambitions and ends is highly unethical and morally wrong. kingdom of ends.” Kant argues that everyone should be respected because everyone has their own emotions, hopes, fears, just like you and me. He believes that everyone should be respected equally. Kant believes that everyone should act as a member of a community of “ends,” all those who possess the same capacity to develop moral capacities. Each member of this community must respect the wishes and needs of others and allow them freedom of decision. It is also important to note that Kant was vehemently opposed to suicide, regardless of the circumstances. According to Kant himself, “he who behaves in this way, who has no respect for human nature and who makes himself a thing, becomes for everyone an object of free will. We are free to treat him like an animal, like a thing, and use him for our sport as we do a horse or a dog, because he is no longer a human being, he has made something of himself. -himself, and having rejected his own humanity, he cannot expect others to respect the humanity in him. " According to Kant, the apparent motive for all suicide is simply "to avoid evil." By this he means avoiding suffering, pain and other negative consequences in life. As noted, Kant believes that treating people as means and ends is fundamentally wrong. But for him, that also includes yourself. However, Kant's ethical theories pose multiple problems. It's too rigid. This can be seen using several examples when applying Kantian ethics to a situation. An interesting example was put forward by. What if, during the era of Nazi Germany, we hid Jews in our homes? Imagine then that an SS officer knocks on our door and asks us if we are hiding Jews. If we consider Kant's theories, then we must remember our duty not to lie to the SS officer, whatever the consequences. As 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, is our ability to reason and our possession of both duties and rights. He believes 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 with it what we want. But how far does this go? What about a person who lacks the ability to be a rational actor, for example someone with a very low IQ or perhaps someone suffering from a mental illness? Can we also do with them what we want? According to Dimmock et al. 2017, “the challenge of Kant's theory is that the field of morality seems larger than the field of reasons”. He highlights the example of mistreatment of an animal, for example kicking a cat. Although this may not be morally right, Kant's theory does not support it, because the cat is not a rational agent and we should nottherefore not have the same morals towards his treatment as we would a human being. When we consider the “Jean case”, we cannot apply recourse to Kantian ethics. The John case is simply far too complex to apply Kantian ethics to the situation. Although John is currently a rational agent, what happens when his body and mind begin to deteriorate from radiation sickness and he can no longer even think for himself? Will he then still be a rational agent? According to Kant's theories, it will simply be reduced to another animal, suitable to be treated as such by humans. Referring to the example of suicide that 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 something 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 if he doesn't want to? This does not respect John's autonomy as a rational agent. It is impossible for them to take a position because the situation creates a paradox in their thinking. Ending John's suffering is morally wrong because it only considers the consequences, but experimenting on John would be considered treating him as a tool, a means, not an end. Their only position regarding the John affair is to take no position. In this situation, it is implied that Kantian deontologists would simply let John die naturally. However, if they're just going to let him die anyway, then why not allow scientists to perform experiments on him? Both things will produce the same result, and if these tests are as discrete as possible, then there is simply no difference. Contrary to the school of ethics is the school of consequentialism. Perhaps the most prolific form of consequentialism is its subset, utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the view that the consequences of our actions play a major role in whether our actions are moral or not. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to achieve happiness or pleasure for the greatest number of people while producing the least harm 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 good actions, utilitarianism places more weight on the outcome of the action and its motivations rather than the action in progress. Jeremy Bentham is similar to his counterpart Kant in that he is perhaps the most forward-thinking thinker of his school. of moral theory. Bentham's main belief is that a person should always strive to provide the result that brings about "the greatest good, or the greatest happiness, for the greatest number." However, with utilitarianism, the right and wrong of these decisions should be measurable. One of the key principles of utilitarianism is that a calculation must be made to decide cost versus benefit. Bentham developed a method that would allow these decisions to be made. He designed it to help 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 said that different pleasures have different levels of quality and not all should be considered equal. For example, Mill said that reading a book had a higher intellectual quality than intellectually inferior physical pleasures, because it is something that only humans