Introduction
The process of decision making faces ethical dilemmas that require the application of relevant theoretical foundations. The most common theoretical foundations of ethics include utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, justice as fairness and altruism. Utilitarianism theories require decisions to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Johnson, 1952, p.154). Kant based his theory of categorical imperative on the premise that decision makers should focus on right decisions regardless of their costs (Johnson, 1952, p.158). The proponents of the theory of justice as fairness propose that decision makers should guarantee equal rights and opportunities even in the face of ignorance (Johnson, 1952, p.161). Altruism advocates for love of a neighbor as the ultimate ethical standard that the human society should hold (Johnson, 1952, p.170). These four theories consider ethical standards as the basis for all decision making endeavors and proposes rational grounds for choosing particular alternatives.
The Background of the Case
I am currently the head of a small aid agency in Congo. Recently, a peculiar parasite in the water destroyed ten people’s corneas and the ten became blind. Doctors without Border agency, a non-governmental organization, has volunteered to deploy two doctors who will aid in transplanting corneas. Since corneas are scarce in Africa, the area director of Doctors without Borders called and told me that a Chinese aid agency is willing to exchange twenty corneas for a truck and ten cases of medical supplies. The origin of the corneas is a concern to me; a wealthy Hong Kong businessman bought them from an agency who buys body parts for transplant from executed prisoners. The director, Doctors without Borders, says that she has no problem using the corneas despite the fact that I am uncomfortable with their source. She has given me twenty-four hours to decide or else she gives them to someone else.
The Utilitarianism Theory
The primary premise of the utilitarianism theory is that moral decisions should consider the consequences of the choices. Decision makers should consider the possible outcomes of their choices when selecting appropriate courses of action (Johnson, 1952, p.154). Jeremy Bethany and John Stuart Mill argued that the best decisions do the greatest good for the masses. Utility derived from decisions can either be based on act utilitarianism or rule utilitarianism. There are four steps of utilitarianism in deciding the current case. First, I need to identify the issue or action under consideration. Second, the theory requires me to specify the parties that might be affected by the chosen alternative. The third step of utilitarianism theory is to determine the positive and negative consequences on the involved parties. Fourth, I need to sum up the merits and demerits of the selected course of action, and take the one with more benefits than costs.
The present case requires me to decide whether to accept the illegal corneas or leave the refugees continue suffering from blindness. Using the donated corneas from undesirable sources may not have any direct consequences on the parties involved. The main long-term effect is that it may encourage the corrupt prison wardens to continue with their illegal business. If I decide to use the corneas, the ten blind people will be healed. Refusing to use the corneas may not stop the continuity of the illegal business. The director has the choice of donating the corneas to another person. Furthermore, the end justifies the means. The refugees are suffering from blindness and the only way to help them is to accept the corneas. Act utilitarianism states that what is best in a specific context provides the highest level of utility (Johnson, 1952, p.154). I think the best decision to make in this case is to assume the source of the corneas and do good to many people who are currently suffering from blindness.
Kant’s categorical imperative
Immanuel Kant argued that decision makers should consider the alternatives that are morally upright regardless of the consequences. The primary tenet of Kant’s theory is doing the right regardless of the personal costs (Johnson, 1952, p.158). Kant’s approach to moral reasoning is the best example of deontological ethics, which require decision makers to make choices on the basis of their duties. The theory of categorical imperative argues that people’s personal interests may contradict their obligations. According to this theory, one person’s right choice is also right for all (Johnson, 1952, p.159). The basic concern of decision makers is whether other people would make the same decision. Kant argued that other people may have the potential to achieve our goals; however, he emphasized that these people’s rights should be respected and not used as tools for our own survival (Johnson, 1952, p.159).
The consequences of the current case include continued suffering of the infected refugees and their affected families. There is only one alternative available: accepting the corneas from the donor who has bought from corrupt prison wardens. The act of acquiring the corneas from executed prisoners does not coincide with society’s moral standards. Kant’s theory requires me to do the right regardless of the consequences. My obligation is to ensure that the infected people have gotten their corneas transplanted. My personal interest is to ensure that I stick to societal standards of morality. I would have accepted the decision because other people have accepted it too. Having been aware that the source of the corneas is illegal, I should not accept the corneas. This is because extraction of the corneas from the prisoners did not respect the right of the prisoners and implies using other people to satisfy our goals, which is contrary to Kant’s categorical imperative. If I accept the corneas, I will be one of the agents encouraging this exploitative business. Perhaps by refusing the corneas, someone may realize that it is immoral to infringe the rights to life others for the sake of money. I refuse to accept the corneas because their source contradicts the premises of Kant’s categorical imperative.
Justice as Fairness
I believe there was no freedom of choice among the prisoners to donate their body parts, including the current corneas in question. The executors of the corneas failed to observe the basic principles of morality, which fosters freedom and equality in moral choices. The basic premise of justice as fairness is to guarantee equal rights and opportunities behind the veil of ignorance (Johnson, 1952, p.162). This theory proposes that justice and fairness should characterize democratic societies. John Rawls argued that the principles of morality should foster freedom and equality when making moral choices. Rawls rejected the theory of utilitarianism and proposed the two principles of justice set up on social institutions (Johnson, 1952, p.162). The first principle guarantees people equal rights compatible with similar liberties for the masses. The second principle provides the greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of the society.
Prior to deciding whether to accept or reject the donated corneas, I have to consider the willingness of the prisoners during the donation of the corneas. The process of executing the corneas is moral if the warden prisoners allowed equal rights to prisoners’ life and the victims whom the corneas were going to be transplanted. The democratic society ought to have ensured justice and fairness for the prisoners, and give them the right to decide whether they offer the corneas or not. The case, however, reveals that the wealthy Hong Kong businessman bought the corneas from an agency who buys body parts for transplant from prisoners. The case also informs me that this business is a plan by corrupt prison wardens who make huge profits from this unethical act. They are, thus liberal with executions, especially of political prisoners. I reject the offer from the Hong Kong businessman because the source of the corneas contracts the ethical foundations of justice as fairness.
Altruism
The rich Hong Kong businessman observes the ultimate ethical standard of love to his neighbor. This businessman believes that his personal actions should be designed to help others despite the personal cost. The ethical foundation of altruism focuses on moral reasoning and characterizes moral people as compassionate, hospitable, generous, empathetic, and concerned about the welfare of others (Johnson, 1952, p.170). The Hong Kong businessman, therefore, portrays unconditional love by buying the corneas and donating them to help his neighbors. His main goal is not to promote further killings, but to save the lives of the refugees. Additionally, if I refuse the offer of the corneas, the donor will collaborate with Doctors without Borders and give the corneas to someone else. Assuming that the businessman is not concerned with the source of the corneas, I should accept the corneas since his volunteerism coincides with the theory of altruism.
The main issue that arises in the case is to consider whether the executors loved their neighbors during the process of execution. The corrupt prison wardens pass the death sentences on political prisoners and forcefully extract their body parts for sale. Virtuous prison wardens are ought to be other-centered and not self-centered. Their egocentricity misleads them to kill for purposes of making themselves rich. People who love their neighbors protect their lives at all costs. I do not think that it is moral for me to accept the corneas that have been illegally sourced. I believe that if the blindness victims realize that I transplanted them the corneas from such immoral, they may live to regret enjoying the assassins’ body parts. I would better seek an alternative treatment for the refugees than accepting the current offer.
The Most Suitable Theory for the Current Case
I think the best theory to apply in solving the current dilemma is Kant’s categorical imperative. This is because Kant argued that some people may have the potential to enable us achieve our goals; however, he emphasized that these people’s rights should be respected and not used as tools for our own egocentric gains (Johnson, 1952, p.159). I need to consider the fact that the extraction of the corneas from prisoners is one way of using others as tools for our own survival. Despite the current state of the infected refugees in the camp, I cannot encourage this malicious business continue. Additionally, the act of extracting prisoners’ body parts disrespects people’s right to life. I choose to apply Kant’s categorical imperative in this case since it is based on proper tenets of morality.
Conclusion
Ethics theorists have developed moral foundations for guiding effective decision making process. The most common theoretical foundations of ethics include utilitarianism, Kant’s categorical imperative, justice as fairness and altruism. Different theories may lead to different decisions under similar moral choices since they have varied ethical backgrounds. The current case involved me deciding whether to accept the corneas from immoral sources to help the ten people going blind in a Congo refugee camp. The rich Hong Kong businessman had bought the corneas from an agent who buys body parts for transplant from executed prisoners. The most suitable theoretical foundation for this case is Kant’s categorical imperative. Kant’s theory protects the subjects under mistreatment from excessive exploitation by their superiors.
References
Johnson, C. E. (1952). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership: Casting light or shadow. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
