The Right and The Good Chp 2
In this reading Ross attempts to argue against a Utilitarian point of view to discuss what makes action “good” or “right”. He argues against the statement that whatever maximizes the feeling of good is inherently good, regardless of the action itself. His argument attacks the premise that the “rightness” or “wrongness” of an act does not hinge on the act itself but of how much pleasure the act produces. He describes a more open ended version of this approach by placing the morality of the act on duty of the individual. An act may be just if it maximizes pleasure, but it is not the maximization of pleasure that makes the act right but rather the fulfillment of duty. The duty to protect life and limb overcomes the duty to hold ones obligations. Therefore someone who ignores a prior obligation of meeting someone in order to prevent an accident they were aware would happen, it can be morally right to ignore their meeting to avoid the loss of life or injury but only because the moral weight of protecting life is greater than the moral weight of not wasting someone’s time. Rather than being due to the amount of pleasure it would produce or save.
From a Utilitarian standpoint I would lean on the side of disagreement with his argument. It is my belief that maximizing pleasure universally will always outweigh the perceived duty of an act and its associated “rightness” or “wrongness”. An example of this that highlights the fault in Mr. Ross’s perception of what makes an act right or good through duty would be in the medical case of Ms. Weisman. Ms. Weisman was hospitalized after a stroke and placed on life support by Maryland General Hospital. The family of Ms. Weisman drafted directives for the hospital that in the case of heart failure she not be revived. Ms. Weisman went into Cardiac Arrest and responding hospital staff proceeded to revive her through CPR and other life saving measures. The family of Ms. Weisman is suing the hospital for violating it’s MOLST agreement of “do not revive”. According to Mr. Ross’s argument the nurses obligation to carry out their duty as essential life saving workers, and their duty to protect life should theoretically outweigh their duty to conform to a social contract. Someone with Ross’s point of belief would also likely argue that it is impossible to predict future pleasure/happiness from the occurrence of one event. If the family enacted this contract to avoid future pain and suffering, both physically for Ms. Weisman and emotionally/mentally for her family and relatives. It would be hard to see how Mr. Ross’s claims could hold up given the victims age and extent of bodily damage/deteriorating health where it is known that the remainder of her life could likely be filled with agony and pain. From a Utilitarian approach there would be less suffering therefore more “happiness” from not reviving and carrying out ones duty based upon pleasure. Therefore in this example I believe it could be found morally wrong to continue the pain and suffering of both the individual and the family of the victim when eventual death is unavoidable and the prolongation of death creates greater misery.
This was a complicated example and I don’t advocate against the preservation of life but saw it as thought provoking and easily dissected from both sides. It could also easily be argued that Ms. Weisman’s future after being revived was full of happiness and over time the family was much happier overall with her continued existence which would support Mr. Ross’s argument.
Link to the article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/health/wrongful-life-lawsuit-dnr.html
#PHIL320S21