Kant Mill and Aristotle

Ethical Theory The author of this report has been asked to answer several questions about noted ethicists and philosophers. There will also be coverage of both of those as they pertain to happiness, good, evil and utilitarianism. The people that will be covered in these answers include Mill and Kant. When it comes to Mill, there will be a definition of happiness as well as what is meant by something or someone being intrinsically good or evil.

As it relates to Kant, there will be the question of whether it is ever morally acceptable under Kantian ethics to lie to patients so as to not cause them psychological harm. Finally, there will be the question of whether it is practical or possible to combine utilitarianism and ethics of care. While some ethical questions about healthcare are cut and dry and have a fairly to very obvious answer, there are most certainly shades of gray that must be toiled and dealt with.

Questions Answered When it comes to the definition of happiness, there multiple layers to the answer but they are fairly distinct when read from the work and assertions of Mill. First, Mill aligns with Aristotle on the same subject when he says that happiness requires activities that are specific to humans. For example, driving a car might bring happiness to someone and that would work under the Mill/Aristotle viewpoint as only humans can drive cars.

Mill expanded on that answer by saying that humans must have faculties and appetites that are clearly superior to that of other animals. Mill believed in all of this based on main thing, which Aristotle happened to agree with. Both men suggested that only humans can live according to reason. Indeed, other animals live according to instinct and much more basic feelings that do not include any sophisticated logic.

Instead, animals really only worry about meeting their needs and defending their brethren (sometimes) but logic and reason do not enter the equation. Animals react without a lot of consideration and certainly no depth of morality or reason (Senior, 2012). When it comes to matters that are intrinsically good or bad, Mill is very clear on the former. He notes that pleasure is the only thing that is intrinsically good (Krieger, 2016).

When it comes to things that are intrinsically bad, Mill was very much a proponent of the work of Plato and this would indicate that while pleasure is intrinsically good, pain would be the opposite and would be intrinsically bad (Zimmerman, 2002). As far as whether a healthcare provider should lie so as to prevent psychological harm, Kantians would most certainly say that this would be wrong even if the intentions were good. Kant held that morality is based on a categorical imperative.

Meaning, if lying is deemed to be an evil thing to do under general morality (and it is), then this is true in all cases and not only when telling the truth is an easy thing to do. Further, Kant asserts one should act, regardless of one's aim and purposes, on the maxims that the moral society in question should be adopting. In this case, not lying would be the thing that people should do and thus there should be no exception to it.

Such a hard line would be hard to defend in some cases and healthcare would be among them. However, Kant was pretty black and white in his feelings (TAMU, 2016). As for utilitarianism versus the ethics of care, the question becomes whether they can be fused together. The answer would be "usually" but there would be situations where it would be hard to impossible to truly so. Utilitarianism is about bringing the greatest good to the greatest amount of people.

The other half of that statement is that some people might be inconvenienced or even made to suffer as a result. However, there are some that assert that becoming a nurse means taking care of "all" patients .. not just most or many (Lachman, 2012).

In short, the answer is that utilitarianism would generally align with the expected ethics of care but there are going to be some either/or decisions that have to be made due to lack of resources or danger to the public and those will lead to behaviors that utilitarianism followers would side with but nursing ethicists would not. Conclusion The author of this response holds that must ethical decisions are fairly clear even if they are hard to execute.

At the same time, bringing the greatest amount of good to the most people possible can sometimes lead to problems for certain people and certain situations. The author of this report would point to the woman who would not adhere to an Ebola-related quarantine even though she had not manifested symptoms. However, the incubation period of the disease.