Utilitarianism is a form of normative ethics. According to Utilitarianism, an action will be classified as moral or immoral based on the end result that comes from such an action. Therefore, Utilitarianism classifies a moral action as any action that maximizes utility (Graham 121-161). Utility refers the wellbeing of the sentient entities in the society which arises from the aggregate good that arises from the action. In order to understand the good, the concept of hedonism is applied. According to hedonism, anything is deemed to be good if it led to pleasure (Graham 39-52). Nonetheless, the concept of hedonism agrees that there are numerous things that can be good such as freedom, foods or clothes among other. However, this good is only instrumental since it only contributes to the production of pleasure or happiness (Graham 39-52). The concept further notes that happiness and pleasure are intrinsic in nature that will not produce any additional valuable thing. As such, they are the end result. Therefore, Utilitarianism considers the end results.
In Steve and Mary case, the couple is considering choosing the baby that they will have as a way to gain happiness. Therefore, according to the concept of hedonism, the process of selecting the child is a means to get pleasure but it is not the end result. The end result is having the right baby thus become happy. As such, according to Utilitarianism ethics, an action will be immoral if it reduces utility thus reducing the wellbeing of the people. Although the decision to select the baby does destroy the wellbeing of destroyed zygotes, the action will be contributing the overall good by improving the happiness of the couple and the quality of the baby selected. The decision is, therefore, ethical by Utilitarianism ethics.
Right Based Ethics
A right can be defined as an entitlement to something. In addition, a right will imply correlative duties to others since an individual right imposes a duty on others. For instance, one free speech right will impose a duty to others not to prevent another from exercising the freedom of speech. In addition, a right may be negative or positive. A positive right is a right that imposes action such as medical care while a negative right obliges inaction such as privacy right and freedom of expression (Becker and Charlotte 1341). Rights can be further understood in two categories namely natural rights and conventional rights. Natural rights refer to those rights that are cannot be defined by laws, culture or social expectations while the conventional rights are those that are derived from social constructs that reflects the society’s expectations and values (Becker and Charlotte 1341).
In the case of Mary and Steve, there are two sets of rights that will be considered. Scientifically, life begins at fertilization. Therefore, by choosing to carry out the screening, it means that only the zygote that carries the desired genetic traits will be implanted thus the others will have to be destroyed. In this case, Mary and Steve will have infringed on all the destroyed zygote right to life in the quest of perusing their rights. Therefore, this makes the decision to screen the zygote unethical. In relation to conventional rights, this will vary based on various factors such as religion. For instance, in Roman Catholic, it would be immoral for Mary and Steve to choose the child by screening the zygote while the decisions will not be considered immoral in many non-conservative Pentecostal churches due to the doctrines that govern these churches. The morality of the case is blurred when evaluated using conventional rights due to varied conventions in the society.
Duty-Based Ethics
Duty-based ethics is a normative form of ethics that defines morality in terms of established rules. Therefore, a decision will be termed to be moral if such an action adheres to the established rules. According to this theory, there are rights and wrongs which are based on the Dos and Don’ts. Therefore, although some action may lead to happiness and pleasure, the theory argues that if such an action is a “don’t” it will amount to a wrong. According to Kant’s moral theory, the action of any individual should be motivated by moral obligation (Graham 98-126). As such, any decision that one makes must be well thought thus the individual must align the decision with the rules that have been established. The alignment of the decision with existing rules means that morality provides humans with the necessary framework that they ought to use to guide their actions hence minimizing the impact of human desires and personal intuition in decision making (Graham 98-126). In other words, if it is not in accordance with the rules, no matter how much one desires of it, it is immoral.
In Steve and Mary Case, using the law as established moral rules, the law has not prohibited the process of selecting the baby. Therefore, Mary and Steve have committed no offense since they have not broken any established rules. On the other hand, assume that the general society subscribes to the concept that life begins right from inception; essentially, the decision to select the best baby will mean killing those that do not make it. Therefore, this means that those lives are taken away thus making the couple’s decision wrong.
Virtue-based Ethics
Virtue based ethics is a person, not action based form of ethic. Therefore, virtue ethics is based on character traits of the individual as opposed to the consequences of the actions or the rules that have been established to guide people on ethics. There are three main strands that relate to this form of ethics. However, the papers focus on Eudaimonism. According to this strand, the utmost goal of human life is Eudaimonia, which translates to good life, happiness or wellbeing (Graham 53-70). The goal can be achieved in a lifetime by practicing virtues in all activities. In instances where there are ethical dilemmas, the strand argues that an individual can act virtually by applying practical wisdom (Graham 53-70). Consequently, through this stand, virtual can be understood as a habit that will allow an individual to live a purposeful life.
Applying this form of ethics to the issue of Steve and Mary, virtual ethics defines the purpose of life as Eudaimonia. However, for this case, there is an ethical dilemma that requires the couple to use practical wisdom in order for their action to be deemed virtuous. Science can be considered as practical knowledge thus, should form a good ground of practical wisdom. From science, it is evident that life starts immediately after conception. Consequently, the selection process will involve destroying an already existing life. As such, this cannot be termed as virtuous act since the couple has gone against practical wisdom by destroying the life that does not meet the genetic requirements they seek in their baby.
Justice Based Ethics
Justice is argued to mean giving each person everything that one deserves. In a more traditional term, justice refers to each person dues. The idea of justice is founded on an Aristotle principle where "equals should be treated equally and unequal unequally" (Justice and Fairness n.pag). In a contemporary context, the principle can be translated to mean that individual people should be treated in equal manners unless there is a significant different that can be raised which are relevant to the situation that will warrant individual to be treated differently (Justice and Fairness n.pag). In other words, justice ethics are based on the distribution of benefits and burden as well as the realization of the rights of individuals.
In the case at hand, Mary and Steve should enjoy the benefit of scientific advancement that improves the ability to influence the genetic characteristic of the child. On the other hand, this benefit should not be borne by the forming life. Consequently, the unborn life should be treated equally with the already formed life since they are both lives but in different states. The decision to screen the genetic makeup of the child and using the Vitro fertilization violates the right to life of the forming life thus giving the couple undue benefit since there is no significant differentiation that can be raised to show that a fertilized egg is a lesser life. As such, the principle advanced by Aristotle should be applied indiscriminately in this case since there is no justifiable differentiation between the forming life and existing life. The violation is an injustice to the unborn life.
Works Cited
"Justice and Fairness." - Ethical Decision Making. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 May 2016.
Becker, Lawrence C., and Charlotte B. Becker. Encyclopedia of Ethics. New York: Routledge, 2001. Print.
Graham, Gordon. Eight Theories of Ethics. London: Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, 2004. Print.
