Section I: Applying Kantian Ethical Theory
In Chapter 5, as cited in Sandel, Kantian ethics is rooted in moral involvement, which derives from human reason. According to Kant’s ethical theory, morality is characterized by categorical imperatives, or universal rules, that should be applied without exception (Sandel, 2010). Recognizing a person as a human being rather than as a mere instrument for an end is one of the cornerstones of Kant’s doctrine.
The Kantian dilemma regarding the appropriation of scanty medical instruments, such as ventilators, in the COVID-19 epidemic is to be resolved from the point of view of respecting each individual’s inherent dignity and worth. The article in The New York Times explains that the Italian doctors went to adults’ moral counselors and argued that their principles were based on utilitarianism, one of the most preferable choices, focusing on consequences only (Frakt, 2020). For the Kantian ethicist, however, the situation is different. Their point is that once we try to use streamlined people as mere means, we may be contradicting the fundamental idea of human beings being distinctive and beyond our control.
Differently, Kantian treatment of patients based only on the likelihood of their survival or the ability to benefit the community could be seen as using the sick as tools for achieving the highest good for most people. Such actions do not disregard the essence of life, which includes dignity and the free will of all individuals. As insinuated in the article, whoever is the younger patient is more ideal than the older ones because of their remaining years of life (Frakt, 2020). Instituting this methodology in return is incompatible with the idea that every person should count, regardless of age or seemingly valuable characteristics.
Kantian ethics, moreover, emphasizes that the rules’ internal coherence and universality are crucial attributes. Regarding the fair distribution of medical resources during a pandemic, one could proclaim that Kantianism would maintain an impartial attitude, allowing each person to be respected and considered equal. To accomplish this, it is imperative to set up regulations to ensure that beneficence is at the center of resource allocation and that every human counts as a means to a purpose in himself or herself as the most crucial element (Sandel, 2010). Kantian ethics favor a sanction for the distribution of medical help in the COVID-19 episode, which is aimed at adhering to the inherent dignity of each person’s life and the principles of impartiality and justice.
Section II: Applying Utilitarian Theory
Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical philosophy that values achieving the ultimate pleasure for the majority as the main aim, is articulated in Sandel Chapter 2 as the idea based on the notions of utility maximization that results in overall happiness. Imparting a maximum level of contentment or being responsible for the least amount of suffering is the appropriate thing to do, according to utilitarianism (Frakt, 2020). A utilitarian would prioritize acting on bestial health outcomes when using medical resources during the coronavirus pandemic. As described in a New York Times article, the Italian doctors applied the principle of utilitarianism by giving ventilators to the people who would be most likely to survive, thereby using them to save the most significant number of lives possible (Frakt, 2020).
In utilitarianism, whether or not colonizing other celestial bodies is economically viable and which of these alien worlds sustains human lives needs to be considered first, and health assessments come second. Amongst all patients, those with the longest life expectancy and best chances of recovery should be the ones to be treated first in the pecking order before anyone else (Sandel, 2010). A utilitarian may argue that the ventilator should, therefore, be moved to someone younger rather than older and that such a person should have fewer underlying medical problems to save the highest number of life years.
Therefore, utilitarianism is characterized by using a similar scale for all parties and the idea that the option with the best outcome will be chosen objectively. Whereas thoughtful planning includes excluding any bias concerning age, health, and chances of survival, it is possible. To reach the most incredible balance of hardship, considering age or disease status when determining the hierarchy is not easy, but it should be done objectively (Sandel, 2010). A utilitarian moralist would probably approve of a policy for the allocation of medical sources amid the COVID-19 pandemic that would focus mainly on the welfare of all citizens while considering factors such as the likelihood of survival and also the ability to restore the affected to their healthy condition on a long-term basis. By using consequentialism to justify policy actions that maximize benefits for the most significant number of people, the goal becomes to achieve this outcome.
References
Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: what’s the right thing to do? The Hedgehog Review, 12(1), 85-90. https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA223901663&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=15279677&p=AONE&sw=w
Frakt, A. (2020, March 24). Who Should Be Saved First? Experts Offer Ethical Guidance. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/upshot/coronavirus-rationing-decisions-ethicists.html?unlocked_article_code=1.hE0.qRX5.f5SWEbJrbxei&smid=url-share
write