Janet\'s Decision Every Day People

Janet's Decision

Every day people must make personal decisions that impact the lives of other people and, in a larger sense, the values of a society. Presently, for example, the country as a whole is looking at the issue of stem cell research and application. Regardless of whether or not this is allowed, it will have a significant effect. If it is permitted, then scientists can continue to determine how to improve or eliminate certain diseases and immeasurable numbers of individuals can have hope about their illness. However, this act completely negates the belief system of innumerable individuals who state embryos are human beings with equal rights, and must have the same protections against abuse as anyone else. They believe life starts at conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg and a distinct organism comes into being. Thus embryo destruction is the destruction of a human life.

The main point is that a decision cannot be made in a void without looking at its ramifications. Janet Moore now has a decision whether or not to work for the tobacco company in order to start her career and, as her friend argues, to work from the inside to "maybe save a few lives." Several assumptions are being made: 1) Janet is enhancing her career through this position (This may or may not be the case.); 2) Janet will be able to "look at herself in the mirror" when working for a company contrary to her value system, based on the justification that she can make "a difference" (Janet may or may not be able to handle this personal dilemma); 3) Most important, Janet's actions will make "a difference" and, if so, how many people will be impacted (This is an unknown, as well.)

In order to know what to do, Janet uses the formulations of Immanuel Kant for resolving ethical and moral decisions and the writings of individuals such as John Mills on utilitarianism. Kant's first formulation is "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature." Bottom line: Her decision is not only for herself, but for everyone. According to Kant, moral or "right" actions are ones made out of a sense of duty because they are the right thing to do for everyone. How does Janet know her duty? Kant contest this can be determined from her unique human nature. In this capacity, she is rational unlike any other earthly animals. Humans alone can reason and, which impels them to be logical and consistent and make the basic universal rules for everyone to follow. If Janet takes the position, she is setting the moral rule that all people can work for companies that are contrary to their value system. In a wider sense, she is setting the moral rule that people can make any decision that is contrary to their value system. Janet must ask herself what would happen if everyone followed this rule? What would be the impact?

Kant's second formulation "Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." The means do not justify the end. Kant is stang that. Kant is saying that one individual, in this case Janet, cannot use another person, Karen, as a means to an end. A person must never use another for his/her own purposes. In this case, Karen is not only accepting the fact that she is a means to an end, but she is promoting the idea -- namely, because it justifies her own actions. She will not be alone with her own moral decision. However in a wider sense, based on Kant, Janet is using all human beings as a means to justify her ends. Here, the ethical considerations are much greater.

To the contrary, from a utiliatarian point-of-view, the consequences or result of an action make that action either moral or immoral. An action that leads to beneficial or positive consequences is right or moral and one that leads to harmful or negative consequences is wrong or immoral. In short, utilitarianism calls for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians often state the greatest good equates to the greatest happiness. A person's moral duty is to maximize human happiness and to minimize unhappiness -- in the short- and long-term. The question for Janet, then, is whether her work will be the best way to impact the most people. Will her work inside the company help more people than it will harm. Will her work maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness?

Going back to the original three assumptions. Let it be assumed that Janet's future will be positively enhanced this job and that, like Karen, she resolves her moral dilemma. Based on Kant and Mills, then, she must answer the following questions: