Utilitarianism is a contemporary ethical ideology; that argues that the result and product of human behavior is happiness. The ideology holds that the discriminating aspect that is useful in distinguishing the rightness or wrongness of human conduct is pleasure or pain. According to one of its major supporters John Stuart; the basis of morals is the much an action promotes happiness, thus right. That which deprives others of happiness, is thus considered wrong. The proponents go further to argue that happiness is intended pleasure that is not accompanied by pain; and unhappiness is the lack of pleasure in the abundance of pain. The ideas of utilitarianism are based on experiences of what is sensible; avoiding carrying out of selfish intentions; and seeking the support of conscience and moral judgment that are all based on the results of experienced choices. Utilitarianism further seeks to reconcile the motive of benevolence with those of self and communal interest; as if each person was to pursue his own happiness then the end result would not be the happiness for all. The theory also accounts that happiness varies in amount and quality; and therefore depending on the levels of pleasure one is exposed to, the judgment of pleasure may vary. As a result; so as to arrive at a conclusion, some moral standards of right or wrong; pain and pleasure have to be disregarded despite their consequences (Mill 45-56).
The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is that; in act utilitarianism the result and product of the single act at hand is what is considered. In this case if the single act is deemed to create happiness than harm; then the action is justifiable and will be executed. On the side of rule utilitarianism; the results and consequences that result from a rule of conduct; are put into consideration. In this case the immediate happiness is n not dominant; but the long-term consequences of the choice made is what is given consideration (Mill & Sher 32-71).
Giving the case at hand an act utilitarian analysis; the action and choice at hand that requires utilitarian thinking is the choice of which of the two patients should receive the kidney, which would mean that the other either loses his life; or does lose it after a given time. Considering the ages of the two patients; John would receive the kidney as opposed to the 70 year old man who has a shorter period to live; holding that they both are to live to their old age. The seventy year Paul; due to other illnesses is expected to live not more than five years if he receives the kidney; as opposed to John who is expected to live a normal long life. The choice of giving John the kidney; would also mean that he would get a second chance in reviewing his educational standing, and the negative behaviors of drinking at the expense of his academics.
This is the assumption in this case because he must have learnt from the accident. The choice of performing dialysis on John; would see him through a few years as compared to the aged patient who is expected to live a maximum of five years if he receives the kidney; and a year if he receives dialysis therapy. This leaves only the option of giving the kidney to the patient who would live a longer normal life; as opposed to the aged patient who would still live a short period of time. The fact that tissue and blood types of the two patients are rare; would drive the choice to giving John the kidney as his family is capable of paying the costs for the transplant; as opposed to giving it to the aged patient who will not pay for the costs and still will not have enough time to benefit from the transplant. This choice will be made regardless of the fact that he will not pay for it as it is morally considerable (Mill & Sher 32-71).
Taking a utilitarian view of the case; would mean that consideration is given to the long-term impact of the choice made on who receives the kidney based on utilitarian rules. Considering that John is a drunkard who drove himself to the accident that led to the rapture of his kidney; the choice of giving him the kidney would be avoided based on the fact that the kidney would not be helpful if he continues drinking. In this case he would not live long enough and would not succeed academically; as it is evident that the short time he spends in academics proves that he is more likely to become a failure in the long run. If this is to happen; then he would live not to benefit the society like the aged Janitor has; and is still doing. The choice of exposing Paul to the dialysis therapy; would mean that the activities that he does to the community would last only a year; and possibly less due to the fact that his ability would decrease continuously. This would mean that the happiness of the public he addresses would have been sacrificed for the benefit of John; who does not seem to be of any societal benefit. In this case it is also important to account that the utilitarian rules of the hospital will dictate the choice as the hospital requires that hospital costs have to be met; so as to have therapies administered. In this case this rule is meant to protect the future capability of the hospital; which would mean the provision of healthcare in the future. As a result John will receive the kidney as he is capable of paying the costs (Mill 45-56).
However the conclusions arrived at in utilitarian thinking; are not free from grey areas that are not addressed by the concerns of morality and rationality of the choices made. Therefore presented are a few conclusions that may be arrived at with regard to given standards while disregarding others.
Work cited
Mill, John. “Utilitarianism”. Mobile reference Publication. (2008): 45-56
Mill, John. & Sher, George. “Utilitarianism”. Hacket Pub Co. (2002): 32-71