The case of “The Schiavos” is focused primarily on one member of the family, which is Terri Schiavo.
Terri had been in a coma for 13 years. Although, “no one is completely sure what happened but the best guess is she suffered a heart attack” (Pierce, 64) presumably caused by her bulimia. Due to the severity of her heart attack, it left Terri with severe brain damaged which in turn left her in a persistent vegetative state which leaves a person showing no awareness of one’s environment.Terri’s husband, Michael Schiavo, contended that there was no hope for Terri to recover and that he felt it was his wife's wish that she not be kept alive through life support. Michael Schiavo wanted her feeding tube removed, after which Terri would slowly die. The parents of Terri however, felt that Terri “should be fed indefinitely” (Pierce, 64).
Thus, creating a moral battle between her parents, and her husband as to whether or not Terri Schiavo should continue to live in her vegetative state. When a choice is made, often the question is asked: "was it the right decision"?For thousands of years, humans have struggled with the idea of the morality of their actions. This has resulted in a large number of belief systems regarding the nature of actions. In the system of Utilitarianism, the ends justify the means, and actions are judged on the results, not on the intentions or motives. On the other hand, the direct opposite of the Utilitarian ideal, is Immanuel Kant and his Kantian Ethics.
For Kant, the end results were not important in determining whether an action was just or not.Motive was everything to him, and he had very strict views on how to judge the morality of an action. Both Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics can be applied to the case of The Schiavos. In society these days, Utilitarianism is the name of the game.
The basic philosophy of Utilitarianism, the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount, is one of the basic building blocks of the democratic system. If a person lives on the principles of Utilitarianism, they disregard the motives involved in an action.Utilitarian’s try to separate the action from the actor, and look at the bigger picture over the individual. Followers of Kant, disagree with this approach, and claim that in this system, minorities and individuals are often overlooked and brushed aside. Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral.
Kantian ethics is a subcategory of Deontological Ethics, which is the rightness of actions. Kantian ethics uses the concept of categorical imperative, which states that you should act in ways such that you can rationally will your acts to be a universal law.Therefore, that which is good, not that which is bad, can be universalizable. Kant believed that all people should act in a way so that you never treat another person as a means, but only as an end onto themselves. This means that if someone were to perform an act, they would do so without concern for the consequence, but rather because they believe it is in fact what they should do. For instance, if a person were to ask me if his car was nice but I thought it was junk, Kant would disregard his feelings because telling him the truth is more important.
Therefore, it is okay to perform illegal or unethical actions because morality and loyalty are more important. The problem would then arise: “What if everyone did this? What if everyone acted on impulse and did whatever they wanted? There would be no need for moral choices and there would be no such thing as private property. Therefore, we see that in the case of The Schiavos, Terri’s parents can be seen as a Kantian, because they felt that keeping their daughter on life support is what they “should do”.No matter what kind of life their daughter will live, she will still be living, and giving them hope that she will come out of her state. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is a subcategory of Teleological Ethics, which is the goodness of ends.
This means that an act is considered good as long as it benefits the majority. Two types of utilitarianism are act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism states that, when faced with a choice, we must first consider the likely consequences of potential actions, and from that, choose to do what we believe will generate the most happiness.Rule utilitarianism considers a reasonable set of rules that would lead to the greatest amount of pleasure. Contrary to Kantian ethics, utilitarianism is the belief that the end justifies the means. To use the example of the friend with the dress: Utilitarianism would suggest making a white lie so as to make the friend feel better.
Despite the fact that you lied, the consequences created more happiness or pleasure. A triage in an emergency room could also be used to compare Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism.Kantian ethics would save anybody. But utilitarianism would select the person who would cause more good. Through Utilitarianism, we can see that Terri’s husband Michael is acting as a utilitarian. He is looking at the greater good for his wife.
He sees that the way she is living is no real way of life and feels that she would not have wanted to live on life support. The problem with utilitarianism is: How do you measure the pleasure? How do you know for sure which situation would lead to more happiness?For each of these philosophies, the question of living the "good life" is a complicated part of the belief system. For the Utilitarian’s, living a life that benefited as many people as possible, in essence, a life that caused the greatest widespread good and the results would be considered a life of virtue. For Kant, the only moral action is one that is done entirely because of requirement.
He also makes the distinction between motives, showing us that an action can be in accord with duty and still be immoral. An example of this would be if a person owes money to a friend.If they pay back the money simply because they owe it, then Kant would say their action was moral. But if they paid the money back because they felt it would give them the opportunity of borrowing more later on, or that their friendship would be negatively affected, Kant would regard their action as immoral. This is a sharp contrast to a Utilitarian view of the same situation.
A Utilitarian would argue that either way, the money was paid back. The lender received what they wanted, and the borrower, whatever his motives, kept his friend and did what was promised.Looking at Utilitarian and Kantian philosophies, the two appear complete opposites. But in the end, as with many ethical systems of belief, the end that both seek is a virtuous life. A Utilitarian aspect could be more appropriate for one situation; while a Kantian perspective might be better for another.
If one keeps a working knowledge of both philosophies, one can look at life with a broader view, and not get too firmly entrenched in one set of beliefs. That way, it is possible to face each day with an open mind, and truly live a life of virtue.
