PHI 112 M5 Analysis

.docx

School

Pueblo Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

112

Subject

Philosophy

Date

May 5, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

5

Uploaded by mirmrox2020 on coursehero.com

Archuleta 1 Miranda Archuleta Patricia Moriss PHI 112: Ethics April 24, 2022 Module 5: Comparative Analysis Heinz Dilemma Naturally as humans we each have different views, values, and virtues that we stand behind. This will affect the way we perceive and interpret the world around us. These beliefs will factor in when we assess the actions of others and decipher whether we believe what another person did was wrong or right, whether it was handled accordingly or if we feel it could have been handled differently in a more effective manner. When analyzing the issues of the Heinz dilemma from a utilitarian perspective I would be inclined and willing to accept that yes, what he did was wrong as generally one would view theft as wrong, but he did it for the right reasons to serve the greater good of his wife and her ability to live, therefore it would make it an acceptable act in this perspective. After analyzing the Heinz dilemma from the perspective of a utilitarian it is important to draw upon what the beliefs of a utilitarian support. Utilitarianism is a theory of morality that holds the premise that an action is right as long as it brings happiness and serves the greater good of society or a group. An action being moral or immoral is determined by the consequences of the action. Once the result is seen, one can then decide which is right for the majority. Although the consequences may not always be ethically correct. In this case there is not a large group there is the couple Heinz and his ill wife. The choice he made to steal the medication came from the desire to help his wife
Archuleta 2 when he felt he had exhausted all other options after his attempt to do the right thing the right way. In stealing the medicine. Stealing one's drug is not acceptable, but when we look at Heinz situation, he is only doing it to save his wife from death. There are not any other intentions behind that. He is not doing it for his publicity, or money. Trying to save his wife cannot be judged in front or moral and ethical court. Heinz act did not violate the categorical imperative which denotes that a person must do something, no matter the consequences. Categorical imperative says that an ethical person should follows a universal law regardless of their situation. In this case the universal law was to protect his family regardless of the consequences. Considering the approach from the view of a utilitarian there are a few weaknesses associated. The first weakness in this account being that it lacks consistency. “ A moral theory should be consistent in the sense that its principles, together with relevant factual information, yield consistent moral verdicts about the morality of actions, persons, and other objects of moral evaluation (Timmons).” In this case it is my belief that Heinz would be supported in his actions however my choice would be different based on circumstances. For example, what if Heinz had killed the druggist in order to acquire the drug needed? I would then disagree despite the need being the same to support his ill wife I would not say his actions are morally justified. The second weakness being that people are inherently selfish, as hard as we may try to be unbiased, human nature is to put ourselves first. Pleasure, pain and happiness are all subjective, it is difficult to judge the pleasure or pain that other people suffer in the case the suffering of his wife and her feelings of wanting to be alive despite her illness. Was she suffering more being alive? Would she have rather enjoyed what time she had left and rested in
Archuleta 3 peace? Was he keeping her alive out of her will to continue living or for his sake of not living alone without her? His self-interest and focus on the needs of himself made him steal the drug to save his wife but did he consider the consequences of his actions? If he were to be caught and punished would his wife be able to care for herself despite her illness. In response from a virtue ethicist regarding the actions and choices Heinz made one would more than likely support him. As Aristotle notes that having virtue consists of doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right amount, toward the right people. Aristotle and other virtue theorists believed that, if we can just focus on being good people, the right actions will follow, effortlessly. Essentially if you become a good person, and you will do good things (Aristotle & Virtue Theory). The reason Heinz would be supported is his will and reasoning for stealing the medicine was to preserve the life of his wife. One would also believe that his acts were virtuous as they were committed for the greater good. He acted in the manner that Aristotle outlined, he did the right thing for his wife at the right time. He did not initially steal the medicine; he exhausted all efforts to legitimately purchase the medicine, he was declined to purchase for the sake of what money could be made by the druggist. Heinz did the right amount he did not take anything more than what was needed. The druggist however was not virtuous, instead of being happy with his medicine having the capability to save a life he only wanted to do so if the price benefitted him not simply for the good of humanity. According to universal human ethics, ethical principles are based on shared human values. The activity of druggist violates human ethics.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help