According to Jeremy Bentham, "nature has put man under the governance of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain." This is the guiding force behind utilitarianism, a philosophy of morality originally put forth by David Hume and further developed by John Stuart Mill. It is a central tenet to much of the moral relativism we see today. This from Texas A&M:
According to preference utilitarianism, those conditions are promoted that allow each individual within society to pursue happiness as he or she defines it. Each individual may use his or her own preferences as a guide to action. But of course each person must also promote those conditions that allow others to pursue their own preferences. So, from the utilitarian perspective, each person has a double obligation: to maximize his own well-being, however this is defined, but only insofar as this is compatible with promoting those conditions that enable others to maximize their own well-being, however they define it. Only in this way will the utilitarian ideal be realized.
Morality, in this view, is not determined by a standard or anything absolute. It is determined by looking at the case, who it affects and determining the costs and benefits to the various parties. Whichever gives the greatest benefit to the most people is the morally correct choice.
For some application: Consider a woman with a chronic illness. There are a number of complications in her treatment and her life consists of daily medication regimens and trips to the hospital to monitor her condition. There are further complications and she needs a risky surgery. Against all odds, she survives, but there is some bleeding to the brain. She is conscious, able to communicate and in need of a ventilator. This all is very expensive. The insurance company is incurring a great deal of cost. The hospital begins to feel the pressure. An ethics committe is convened and it is determined that the ethical thing to do is to remove the ventilator. And let her die. She has lost the cost-benefit analysis.
Andrea Clark has been given a healthy dose of pain medication which has since rendered her unconscious (most of the time), but this is medication induced and is not a result of her condition. She is able to communicate. And she communicated clearly to family and doctors that she wished to fight for her life, not give up. That is why the ethics committee was convened. In order to usurp her and her family's choice to hold on to life.
For more on this story, including contact information to the hospital involved (St. Luke's) as well as the insurance company in question (Blue Cross Blue Shield):
WorldNetDaily
Texasrainmaker
Pursuing Holiness
Democratic Underground (a post from her sister)
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Texas Advance Directives Blog (Ms. Clark's attorney)
Andrea Clarke, Andrea Clark, Texas, Futile Care Law, futile care, right to life, medical ethics
According to preference utilitarianism, those conditions are promoted that allow each individual within society to pursue happiness as he or she defines it. Each individual may use his or her own preferences as a guide to action. But of course each person must also promote those conditions that allow others to pursue their own preferences. So, from the utilitarian perspective, each person has a double obligation: to maximize his own well-being, however this is defined, but only insofar as this is compatible with promoting those conditions that enable others to maximize their own well-being, however they define it. Only in this way will the utilitarian ideal be realized.
For some application: Consider a woman with a chronic illness. There are a number of complications in her treatment and her life consists of daily medication regimens and trips to the hospital to monitor her condition. There are further complications and she needs a risky surgery. Against all odds, she survives, but there is some bleeding to the brain. She is conscious, able to communicate and in need of a ventilator. This all is very expensive. The insurance company is incurring a great deal of cost. The hospital begins to feel the pressure. An ethics committe is convened and it is determined that the ethical thing to do is to remove the ventilator. And let her die. She has lost the cost-benefit analysis.
Andrea Clark has been given a healthy dose of pain medication which has since rendered her unconscious (most of the time), but this is medication induced and is not a result of her condition. She is able to communicate. And she communicated clearly to family and doctors that she wished to fight for her life, not give up. That is why the ethics committee was convened. In order to usurp her and her family's choice to hold on to life.
For more on this story, including contact information to the hospital involved (St. Luke's) as well as the insurance company in question (Blue Cross Blue Shield):
WorldNetDaily
Texasrainmaker
Pursuing Holiness
Democratic Underground (a post from her sister)
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Texas Advance Directives Blog (Ms. Clark's attorney)
Andrea Clarke, Andrea Clark, Texas, Futile Care Law, futile care, right to life, medical ethics
