How would a divine command theorist evaluate Baby Teresa’s case?
The heartbreaking case of Baby Teresa, born with anencephaly, has ignited deep ethical discussions in both academic and public circles. At the heart of the debate lies a profound philosophical conflict: Divine Command Theory vs. Utilitarianism. These two moral theories offer fundamentally different approaches to ethical decision-making, especially in real-life dilemmas like whether donating Baby Teresa’s organs was the right choice.
With that said, a divine command theorist would argue against donating Baby Teresa’s organs to other babies who may need transplants. From a divine command theorist perspective, donating the organs of a baby or adult, sick or otherwise well, amounts to murder or killing someone. This is one of the commandments that God forbids man not to commit (Rachels and Rachels 4). To that end, a divine command theorist would stand against the notion of donating Baby Teresa’s organs.
How Would a Utilitarian Evaluate the Case?
Utilitarianism is a philosophical principle widely rooted in satiating needs or ends that guarantee people the best outcomes in terms of happiness. In particular, utilitarianism determines the rightness and wrongness of an action based on its outcomes. Notably, a utilitarian tends to view the purpose of morality as a means to ensure that good actions prevail over bad ones.
Utilitarianism and the Moral Value of Outcomes
By this token of logic, utilitarianism justifies an action as morally right only if the outcomes seemingly constitute subsequent attainment of happiness and or positive outcomes for the greatest number of people compared to the bad effects realized from such actions. A utilitarian would thus argue in favor of donating Baby Teresa’s organs to other babies needing such help.
Anencephaly and the Utilitarian Case for Donation
Anencephaly is a debilitating health condition whose prevalence is increasingly common among newborns. Babies born with this condition present one main symptomatic occurrence: lack of a fully developed brain. In particular, anencephalic babies like ‘Baby Theresa’ have brains without the cerebellum, cerebrum, and the top of the skull. Anencephalic babies solely have active brain stems that enable them to breathe for some time before succumbing indefinitely.
Applying the Benefits Rule Argument
Drawing on this argument, therefore, a utilitarian would seemingly argue in favor of donating Baby Teresa’s organs. These organs could help other infants who may very well have a fighting chance at survival. The premise underlying a utilitarian’s moral stance does not treat killing as a ‘game.’ Instead, it views morality through the lens of the ‘benefits rule argument’ (Rachels and Rachels 2).
Indeed, a utilitarian would argue that donating Teresa’s organs would not violate any moral laws. This is because Baby Teresa is unconscious, lacks the potential to decide for herself, and cannot make any wishes for herself. It only shows that someone had to make such decisions for her — and none were better suited than her parents. To that end, the benefits rule argument seems right in this situation.
Just as philosophical theories offer differing views on morality, scientific principles like those in Newton’s Laws of Motion provide structured frameworks for understanding cause and effect in the physical world.
Potential Flaws in Divine Command Theory vs. Utilitarianism
The truth is what one chooses to believe. With that said, it is evident that each philosophical principle tends to define morality based on its own sets of values, norms, and beliefs. This leads to the development of incompatible and incongruent views when discerning the true meaning of morality. The debate between Divine Command Theory vs. Utilitarianism underscores how contrasting worldviews can lead to conflicting moral judgments, especially in ethically complex cases like Baby Teresa’s.
In particular, the divine command theory relies on the metaphysical to justify what is morally right or wrong. However, this may sometimes prove ineffective because understanding morality from a religious perspective depends on faith whose possession requires patience and belief in something greater than one’s ego and contemplations.
Contrastingly, the latter principle similarly prefers outcomes that make most people happy at the expense of the safety of the few whose lives are also important regardless of the dilemma or problems surrounding them.
Work Cited
- Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 7th ed., Mcgraw-Hill, 2012.
Achieve the results you deserve with expert guidance.
Click Order Here now for personalized, high-quality work that meets your exact standards, delivered on time, every time.