Objectivist Traditions and Application
Philanthropists’ Dilemma
The case of two philanthropists who must decide whether their mother (nearing complete brain death and whom doctors believe is in moderate pain) should continue her life is challenging to ponder. She has a 5% chance of meaningful recovery, being ill with terminal cancer and senility. Objectivists stand on both side, all sure of their own moral justification.
Deontological theories, split up into agent-centered or patient-centered theories, are useful to contrast their compelling views in the morally hazardous Delshondra situation. These two differ in that the former focuses on each individual agent’s personal morality dilemmas and decisions, whereas the latter illuminates the importance of rights over duties.
The agent-centered tradition would suggest to each child of the dying woman that they must take a moral inventory of themselves, separately and without each other’s influence. Many great past thinkers have debated the idea of personal revelation versus social discovery, and agent-centered thinkers take personal clarity into highest account. In other words, we are “enjoined to keep our own moral house in order” (Alexander and Moore 4). If the two came to the same conclusion and it happened to be accelerating (but not directly causing) the mother’s death, for the benefit of, perhaps, starving children in third-world countries using resources bought from the mother’s mighty monetary fund, then the conclusion could be justified. Agent-centered philosophers would accept both saving and sacrificing the mother, as long as the decision to do so came about from two individually and thoroughly pondered brains.
Deontology’s hero, 18th Century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, brought some clarity to moral justice with his notion of following one’s duty as a moral agent to make good, un-contradictory, rational decisions. And he sympathized with agent-based ethics. His development of the Categorical Imperative, stating that no one may be used as the means to some other end, would directly discern Delshondra’s accelerated death as immoral. Kant would come to this conclusion by stating that only as long as Delshondra’s death is the means to her own end (or, Delshondra is dying or her own good), then her death is in line with her children’s duty. Also, the decision must be universal, meaning all people would be able to make the same decision in the same case and everyone remain morally clean. The other side of deontology patiently reminds agent-happy thinkers to follow directions and respect human dignity first.
Patient-centered theory proposes that following rules and honoring human rights are the correct route to moral clarity. This theory points to the “right against being used only as means for producing good consequences without one's consent,” so the children may not use their philanthropic use of their mother’s $2.2 million as a way to justify their pulling the plug on her (Alexander and Moore 22). Patient-centered theorists would argue she still has a chance! And the rules must never be forgotten. Their mother clearly stated she wanted to be preserved by any means necessary, unless there was no hope for recovery, and she did have a 20% chance of gaining awareness. Patient-centered folk vote unanimously to keep mother’s ticker ticking. There are other objectivists, however, who have a much more self-centered approach.
Ethical egoists recommend to the children that it would be the time to end mother Delshondra’s life. This tradition, rooted in its belief that people must engage in actions that satisfy their own self-interest, would vehemently argue that letting the mother die would greatly benefit the two children, both emotionally and financially. Seeing a parent lose her faculties is not easy, especially when she once had the clarity to command such prestigious financial assets. The emotional drain on the children must be factored in. Therefore, each child is worse off when Delshondra is alive. An argument could even be made that it would be better for Delshondra if she moved on from this life. Being senile sounds horrifying, spinning in a constant whirlwind of dazed confusion. Plus, she seemed to be in some pain. Ethical egoists would be true to their egos and allow the plug to be pulled with pride.
Utilitarianism, another proud tradition, brings accounting into the equation, championing pleasure and happiness as the absolute good. They would argue: The two children, being generous with their time and money, would translate their inheritance into good actions around the world. On the other hand, if the mother lives, and regains full clarity, her happiness must be considered. The answer is found in the facts. Mother’s utility (another word for happiness) would not be enough to justify hoarding the equivalent of $2.2 million in resources to philanthropic efforts, an amount that could save the lives and raise the utility of countless poor people. They weigh the gained utility versus lost utility, and the outcome with the highest social utility wins.
Work Cited
Alexander, Larry, and Michael Moore. "Deontological Ethics." Stanford University. Stanford University, 21 Nov. 2007. Web. 18 June 2016.
