In question number one, we are asked about how we would deal with one moral dilemma contained in the cases with the children who were all suffering with a certain birth defect. For this question, I would like to look at the case of Baby Theresa. Baby Theresa suffered from a case of anencephaly, which is when the cerebellum, the cerebrum and the top of the skull are missing. Since her parents knew that she would die soon, and never be able to be conscious, her parents requested to donate her organs to children who would actually benefit from them. However, Florida’s law did not allow this, since Baby Theresa was still alive. But, by the time she passed away, which was only nine days later, her organs were useless, as they were not in the condition to be reused.
When looking at this case, I would use utilitarianism as a guide in order to solve the dilemma. Utilitarianism claims that actions are deemed right if they benefit the majority and allow for the most happiness. In this case, Baby Theresa’s organs would’ve potentially saved the lives of other children, allowing for them and their families to enjoy life and be very thankful for Baby Theresa’s parent’s decision. Also, Baby Theresa would not have suffered more than she already had, because of the fact that she was not conscious about life at all, and ended up dying only about a week later. What we have to look at, is how beneficial those nine extra days that she lived actually were. Her parents would have even been happier if her organs were donated, just because they knew that their daughter really had no chance of living, and they potentially could’ve given the gift of life to another child, if not multiple children who would’ve benefitted immensely from Theresa’s organs. An objection to my solution would be that Baby Theresa’s parents would essentially be ‘murdering’ their child. But, regardless, Baby Theresa was suffering, and she was going to die in the very near future anyways, with her life basically being insignificant. Her parents ultimately decided to take these actions based on how they felt about their child, knowing that she was suffering, and knowing that she had no chances of living, so they would’ve rather had her life leave a positive impact on the world, rather than having other children suffer as well.
Question #2:
In terms of morality, I believe we can learn a lot about what it actually is and about its existence from the way we actually make certain moral decisions. Every single day, we make decisions regarding every action we perform. Most of these actions, such as brushing your teeth, and stopping at stop signs, are things that people do without having to put too much thought into. Since people do not think about performing these types of actions, they do not always realize that they are making a decision because they are so used to doing these certain things. On the other hand, for example, when people see beggars on the side of the highway, they are not as quick in making their decisions. They think before they act in these cases, about whether or not to give the beggar money. Usually, if it is just a normal day, people will not stop to offer the beggar any money or help, as they perceive them as being ‘annoying’ or ‘lazy’ most of the times. But, if it is raining outside, or it is freezing cold, more people tend to stop and give the beggar a couple of coins, or even a couple of dollars depending on the situation. This goes to show something about human beings, and also says a lot about morality.
At the end of the day, I believe that morality is strictly based off of emotions, and that there is no way to prove that something is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, just as both Joshua Greene and Gilbert Harman would say. Furthermore, if someone does give the homeless person a dollar, there is no way of justifying whether that action was a good or a bad action, and the same thing goes for someone who did not give the homeless person a dollar. Just as Harman claims, there is no way to prove, and nothing that can be done to test to see whether these deeds are right or wrong. Rather, as Greene claims, these actions are driven by people’s emotions, as people tend to feel worse for the beggar suffering in the freezing cold. As a result of feeling more sympathetic towards the beggar in the freezing cold or in the rain, he or she would receive more attention and assistance. Although there is no way of proving these moral decisions, examples like these really portray how much psychology (and emotions) play into one’s decisions.
Question #5
One ethical issue that I believe should be resolved is the legalization of marijuana. Although the debate about whether or not marijuana should be legalized has been an ongoing issue, I believe that at this point in time, marijuana should be legal nationwide as a couple of states have already passed laws legalizing marijuana, and other states have become more lenient towards it. I look at legalizing marijuana as a form of utilitarianism. When thinking about it, many people smoke marijuana regardless whether it is legal or not, but since it is still illegal, its benefits are nonexistent for those who are willing to follow the laws. This relates closely to Joshua Greene’s “From Neural ‘is’ to Moral ‘ought’:”, dealing with how emotions play a role in people’s actions. If marijuana were to be fully legal, many people would probably stop smoking, or would be less inclined to smoke since there would be no risk in doing so. It is a psychological thing where people feel risky, or feel cool when doing something they shouldn’t be doing in the first place, and because of this, they are more eager to do certain things.
The legalization of marijuana relates closely to Ursula Le Guin’s story, “The Ones Who Walk Away from the Omelas”, as the child suffers for the happiness of the majority, while in this case, drug dealer and criminals would suffer. If it were fully legal, it would be a great thing for the economy, the society and for those who suffer from certain health conditions. In terms of the economy, if it were legal, heavy taxes would be placed on the sale of marijuana creating an immense amount of revenue for the government, and many jobs would also be created as the industry would become a legal market. In terms of the society being better off, there would be less crime amongst people because when dealing with marijuana one would not have to associate with drug dealers, gangs, or with dangerous drug lords, as they would all have less power since marijuana would be easily accessible pretty much anywhere. Finally, those who suffer from pain, or have certain diseases would have easier access to consume marijuana and take advantage of its benefits without worrying about having to do something illegal in order to stop their suffering. Overall, this is a form of utilitarianism, as the majority of the society benefits in many ways, while the drug dealers would be the only ones suffering since their illegal acts would not be so ‘profitable’ anymore.