Utilitarian Bioethics

[Paul the Human]

Do you agree with the ideas put forth by people like Peter Singer (concerning 'Applied Ethics') or the concept of Utilitarian Bioethics in general? Does the 'Greater Good' have more value than the individual?

I am personally disturbed by the idea. I do however, understand the benefits to mankind and the planet, if one could take compassion and empathy out of the equation... but who draws the lines in the sand? Who decides?

Utilitarian Bioethics are becoming more and more influential in policymaking procedures and is being taught to most of the medical students in the world. Is this a good thing?

[KichigaiNeko]

......but who draws the lines in the sand? Who decides?

This is the bit that disturbs me...

[Edwardo Piet]

What I've read of Peter Singer seems a little extreme.

I am a utilitarian in the sense that I believe in the greatest happiness of the greatest number or whatever - and I am against retributivism as an ideal method.

However, in practice it's very difficult... and I think taking empathy and compassion out of the equation would be impossible - we are not robots, that's how we judge right and wrong in the first place.

Not letting them cloud our judgement and fall into some forms of bias, that's important - but we can't get rid of them IMO! That's how we judge right and wrong in the first place. I personally just think ideally retributivism makes no sense to me, being someone who doesn't believe in free will. I think the only reason to punish is if some good comes from it - I don't believe in any intrinsic moral of retribution...

I believe the ends have to justify the means but I don't believe in a "greater good" because I think everyone's well being is important. So there isn't really a "greater" for me. I believe the ends justify the means in the sense that it's only moral to punish if good comes from it, if people learn a lesson, if it prevents more harm to others, etc.

EvF

[Paul the Human]

It's not about punishment. It's about quality of life and the cost to society. According to Utilitarian Bioethics, it is ethical to euthanize babies born with mental or physical defects in order to save them from a life of suffering, as well as save society from having to support them financially. It also saves those people that would have dedicated their lives to caring for them from... needing to bother.

Utilitarian Bioethics also allows for treatment to be withheld from the elderly and terminally ill if that treatment does nothing but extend their lives slightly. The longer they live, you see, the longer they must suffer life... and the more resources (money and manpower) they leech from society. It is far more ethical to simply let them die (or euthanize them).

Those are just a couple of examples of what I consider to be the problems with Utilitarian Bioethics. It shows no compassion or empathy for human life... unless that life can contribute more than it costs society. They try to claim compassion by saying that they are saving these people from suffering.

What bothers me is that this kind of thinking is becoming more prevalent in medical circles and is even being taught in most medical schools.

[SleepingDemon]

I believe in the greater good. If one person dies so a thousand can live it is considered heroic. We weigh one life against a multitude, and most often, the one person is sacrificed for the good of the many. There really isn't a moral question in that situation, it is simply what must be done.

In terms of like, stem cell research, we would be putting the rights of a 3 month old lump of genetic material against those of every human being with a degenerative disease. I think you have to look at the cost/benefit of any medical progress. There is a greater good in the medical field, however you must weigh that against the possible moral implications.

[Edwardo Piet]

It's not about punishment. It's about quality of life and the cost to society.

Yeah that's what I was saying. I support that much.

I'm just not a very extreme utilitarian because some things just naturally feel wrong so I steer away from them even though I may not necessarily be able to argue why it is wrong. I trust my instincts in more extreme issues, and on less extreme issues I try to be more dispassionate. Generally that is.

EvF

[Paul the Human]

I guess that's what I'm getting at. There is 'Bioethics' and then there is Utilitarian Bioethics, which condones killing in the name of the 'greater good'. Kill those born deformed for the greater good. Let the sick die... for the greater good. Deny treatment to the incurable... for the greater good.

Taken to extremes (which is very easy to imagine happening), people could be killed if their IQ is below the standard set by... whoever would set such things. The elderly could be killed to prevent them from becoming a burden upon society. Population control, for the greater good, could become standard practice. So on and so on. The implications of a world where the value of life is judged solely on a Utilitarian scale are frightening.

[Edwardo Piet]

I am utilitarian but I don't believe in the greater good... because I think one person suffering extremely is equally bad as many. Because each person suffers individually.

I believe that the only way more people suffering the same amount is worse than one generally, is because there is also the case of the emotional suffering of those who loved all those people added to that. If one person suffers the suffering may end quicker due to less lovers/friends etc of the person who suffered/is suffering. If more people suffer, there are on the whole more likely to be more friends and lovers of those people altogether that experience emotional suffering. (This is being pedantic and complicated obviously).

In short, I believe utility is moral therefore I am utilitarian but I reject the "greater good" of killing one person to save many and stuff like that.

EvF

[KichigaiNeko]

I am wondering if the "Utilitarian" part is just not some throw back to a simpler tribal culture point in humanities history.

Bringing it forward now after the luxury centuries of 'caring for our weak, unproductive and disabled' is more a statement of a perception of scant resources and the emergence of 'survival of the most aggressively fit'.

The "greater Good"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Fuzz

[youtube]yUpbOliTHJY[/youtube]

and

[youtube]Hff2p705cUI&NR=1[/youtube]

[Zen Badger]

I am always wary of those who spout about "the greater good" and making sacrifices for it.

You can be sure that they will always exclude themselves from that sacrifice.