Introduction
Utilitarianism refers to a theory, which teaches that the course of any action should be that which ensures pleasure, minimizes pain and maximizes the attainment of happiness (Bentham, 2009, p.54). It is a way of finding solutions to problems and ensuring that the solution reached at is best suited to bring happiness. This means that possible outcomes of an action determine the decision to make. All consequences associated with an action form a basis for such judgment. Utilitarianism is composed of two main types: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism.
Act utilitarianism holds that in time of decision-making, all possible consequences of the resulting action need consideration and a decision that brings most happiness made. On the other hand, rule utilitarianism looks at all possible rules that govern a decision (Louis& Lewis, 2012, p.43). This makes it possible to make an analysis on whether there is a rule to follow and what consequences arise from following the rule. The outcome of an action determines whether a rule is worth following. If the rule gives more happiness when adhered to than when not, then it is right to follow it. The difference between these two types is based on the outcome of an action that is governed by either rules or consequences attached to that action (Geoffrey, 1996, 87).
Case analysis using the rule utilitarianism
Possible rules that the hospital may follow are considered when analyzing the situation using rule utilitarianism. The hospital may decide to give the kidney to the patient who came first or the one who offers more money. Age is another criterion that may be used. The hospital may also base their decision on who is a better person or use probability to decide On an ethical basis, the hospital could give the kidney to the patient who came first. This ensures that equality, fairness and justice are given. The janitor cannot afford much money relative to the boy.Therefore, giving the kidney to John would be unfair. This would create and widen the gap between the rich and the poor. This would mean that the hospital offers services relative to the money paid and gives the rich priority. The janitor would then die because he has no money to buy the kidney. Ethically and morally, this is wrong because money should not be a determinant of fairness and justice.
If the hospital decides to give the kidney based on age, then John gets it. The janitor is too old and with other medical complications, his chances are too low. John is young and even though not very good in terms of behavior and character, has a higher chance of survival. People change their behavior and character based on their experiences in life. This experience would possibly change the life of John. If he got the kidney, his survival would depend on change of habit. Knowing that stopping drinking would warrant better health, John would probably change his behavior.
Offering the kidney based on who was a better person would still be unfair. Goodness is a relative concept and varies from person to person. This way, giving the kidney to Paul would not be the best bet. Even if he received the kidney, he would live just a few years and would not probably be able to carry on with his good work. John would be motivated to change, considering that the hospital forfeited giving the kidney to Paul for his sake.
Case analysis using the act utilitarianism
Using act utilitarianism, the hospital would consider the outcome of any possible action taken. Apart from wanting another kidney, Paul has other medical problems that warrant a short life even if he received the kidney. Additionally, he has no medical insurance and therefore the hospital may be hesitant in giving him the kidney because he would not be able to pay. It would not possibly be appropriate if Paul received the kidney and died a few years later and having not paid his hospital bills. The hospital would probably want to avoid such a scenario.
John, on the other hand, comes from a wealthy family that is able to pay for the medical procedure. He is young and has a better chance of survival if he would change his drinking habit. With proper counseling and direction, Paul would definitely change knowing that his life depended on it. Young age is a sign of vitality and potential and this would motivate the hospital to give John the kidney. He has a long life to live ahead of him and this experience would teach him a lot. Since losing life to negligence is a sign of in-depth ignorance, John would definitely stop drinking to improve his health and live a long life. Therefore, the hospital would opt to Give John the kidney.
In conclusion, utilitarianism tries to give solutions to problems. The two types are very useful in coming up with solutions. However, they present inconsistent judgments that show the need for better in-depth analysis and judgment that is not based on rules or possible outcomes of an action or decision only (Bentham, 2009, p.54).
References
Bentham, J. (2009).Utilitarianism.Charleston: Bibliobazaar Geoffrey, C. (1996).Utilitarianism: the Problems of Philosophy. London: Routledge.
Louis, P., and Lewis V. (2012).Philosophy: the Quest for Truth. New York: Oxford University Press.