{"id":286,"date":"2020-12-08T00:24:11","date_gmt":"2020-12-08T00:24:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/?p=286"},"modified":"2020-12-10T12:16:36","modified_gmt":"2020-12-10T12:16:36","slug":"when-saving-your-roommates-life-is-finally-the-right-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/2020\/12\/08\/when-saving-your-roommates-life-is-finally-the-right-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"When saving your roommate’s life is FINALLY the “right” decision."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Should I give my dying grandpa pain medicine even though he said he didn’t want it?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

TL;DR: A grandfather had stated to his family members previously in his life that he does not want any pain medication if he happens to need it when he is old. As of now, the grandfather is an old man who is suffering from memory loss and tons of pain due to an illness. Although the grandfather had told his family members not to give him pain medication, the time has come as to whether or not he is going to receive some. The family members are worrying about whether or not to give the grandfather the pain medication.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mill\u2019s answer would be clear in this situation: the family should give the grandpa the pain medication. Being a subjective consequentialist, Mill asserts that a good action is one that brings \u201cthe greatest amount of happiness altogether\u201d (189). In this situation, we can assess the happiness in each scenario–if the family gives the grandpa the pain killers, and if they choose not to. If the family did not give the grandpa medicine, the grandpa would still be in pain and this would have repercussive effects on the family and their happiness. The grandpa being in more pain would only increase the stress and discontentment of the family, as well as the doctors who help the grandpa. The grandpa complaining less and being more calm would benefit everyone. The painkillers would increase the grandpa\u2019s current happiness, increase the happiness of the family, and increase the happiness of any doctors helping the grandpa. <\/strong>Some would argue that the grandpa\u2019s happiness would be less because he specifically mentioned not wanting pain killers in the past. But, the grandpa is already losing his memory and currently would be happier if the medication was administered. If the family is still hesitant about the grandpa\u2019s wishes, they could ask him in the state that he is right now about painkillers. Even if the grandpa replies that he does not want medication, the family should still consent to him having it because it would increase their happiness and the happiness of the doctors. Additionally, because Mill defines happiness as \u201cintended pleasure, and the absence of pain\u201d, technically the grandpa\u2019s happiness would be greater, though he does not want the medication (186). Medication would remove pain and increase pleasure in the case of the grandpa, so his opinion on the matter would not be important according to Mill. Overall, Mill would say that the family should give the grandpa pain medication, even if he does not want it. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Should I lie to a murderer at my door to save my roommate’s life?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

TL;DR: Two roommates live in a house. Roommate one is in their room and relaxing. Roommate two is in the TV room by the front door. Roommate two hears a knock on the door and to his surprise it is a murderer asking whether or not roommate one is at the house. Roommate two has an opportunity to lie as to the whereabouts of where roommate one is, or he can tell the truth and ultimately end up allowing the murderer to kill roommate one and probably himself (Because no witnesses). Should roommate two lie to save his roommate’s life? <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Mill represents the subjective consequentialist, concerned with outcomes, and unlike Kant who focuses on the lie, Mill would remain much more focused on the murder about to take place. Essentially, for Mill this becomes a question of saving the most amount of lives because this is connected to happiness; if I lie to the murderer, he\/she might kill me as well as my roommate while if I lie, saying my roommates not home, the murderer may leave and we both survive. In this case, Mill would clearly side with lying to immediately protect these individuals’ happiness. As he represents the subjective <\/em>consequentialist, it\u2019s important to consider the murderers perspective. While the context and motivation for the murder may vary, for this murderer, killing the roommate is bringing them a sort of happiness at the expense of another’s life. While Mozi, the objective consequentialist, maintains ethical standards of contributing to the population or poor, Mill believes the morally right choice is that that produces the overall happiest result to benefit the maximum number of people. Murdering even one person is not<\/em> producing the happiest outcome for the most number of people. For the above scenario because Mill is the subjective consequentialist and is therefore concerned with the outcomes of the action, Mill would advise the action that brings the greatest subjective happiness to the greatest number of people. Mill represents utilitarianism:<\/p>\n\n\n\n


\u201cThe creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness\u00a0 Principle, holds that actions are right in\u00a0 proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure\u201d<\/p>Mill 186<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Given this quote, it is apparent that Mill would advise the action that promotes happiness and absence of pain. Therefore if roommate #2 lies and says that roommate #1 is not home and this causes the murderer to leave, then both roommates are happy but the murderer is not. If roommate #2 tells the truth and the murderer then comes inside and kills roommate #1 (and possibly #2 as well for being a witness) then both roommates are dead and this is not beneficial to them and only the murderer is happy because this action was only beneficial for the murderer. Therefore, Mill would advise roommate #1 to lie in order to maximize the overall happiness of everyone involved.<\/strong>
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Should I give my dying grandpa pain medicine even though he said he didn’t want it? TL;DR: A grandfather had stated to his family members previously in his life that he does not want any pain medication if he happens to need it when he is old. As of now, the grandfather is an old … Continue reading When saving your roommate’s life is FINALLY the “right” decision.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1604,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[14],"class_list":["post-286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reader-submissions","tag-mill"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1604"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=286"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":301,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286\/revisions\/301"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/edblogs.pugetsound.edu\/moral-philosophers\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}