moral decision.

An ethical egoist would assert that granting the patient their wish is the only moral decision.”

Egoism does not say whatever one wishes is moral.

It is about what is for one’s personal benefit.

“Since dying is the patient’s primary interest….”

How can dying be of one’s interest when dying means the destruction of the ego?

Social contract and democracy are not identical.

Hobbes was a social contract ethicist and advocated monarchy.

A social contract is not just saying something is moral if it produces peace.

The set of rules has to be in one’s own interests (that is, the interest of the many rational egos forming the society). Locke also said we have inalienable rights.

For utilitarians, only results have moral worth. Intentions do not matter morally.

Let’s think about this case:

Sally works as an administrative assistant for a big industrial food plant in her small town. One day, while she was filing some paperwork, she overheard one of the vice presidents talking to an in-house food inspector. The inspector told the vice president that several hundred batches of the cured meat snacks repeatedly tested positive for small traces of E. coli. He further said that the traces are so small for each snack that they are not required to report it, but the fact that it was present in the food really was a cause for concern. The inspector stated that he would feel comfortable doing a voluntary recall while they attempted to determine the source of the contamination. His concern was that without knowing the cause, the contamination could get much worse.

The vice president told the inspector that doing a voluntary recall would cost the corporation millions, since this was one of their most popular meat snacks. He warned the inspector to keep his mouth shut about the contamination and to keep production going. Sally was mortified! She knew the effects of E. coli poisoning and was horrified to hear that her company would knowingly sell food with such a contaminant. Her first instinct was to inform the FDA in order to protect the general public from such a dangerous product. However, she knew that doing so would essentially shut down her company. This would be especially true if she revealed that the vice president knew about the contamination and still wanted to sell the product. She did not want the company to fail. In this small town, she knows all the workers, most of whom are struggling to survive as it is. So, should Sally inform the FDA even though there is a possibility of the plant closing its doors if she does so, essentially putting hundreds of people out of work? Or should she do what she can to protect the public from a potentially deadly product?

When trying to decide what action is ethically correct, many people consider the consequences of such action. However, which consequence do you consider when deciding? Do you only examine the consequences that you may face for engaging in the act or do you consider the consequences that others may face as a result of your act? What if, as a result of your actions, the majority faced one consequence and the minority faced another? Which group do you look to? This week, you will see that depending on the theory, each of these consequences may be examined. You will find that consequences play a huge part in determining the morality of an action. The same act could be considered right or wrong depending on the result of such an act.

Use this reference:  Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Education. and any additional scholarly source.