Principle of Humanity in Ethical Theories of Utilitarianism and Deontology

If actions maximize happiness for the most people, they shall be morally right, as the theory of utilitarianism dictates (Shafer-Landau, 123). To further comprehend the theory, the concept of consequentialism can be noted. This concept suggest that people should do as much good as possible, focusing on the consequences or result rather than action or motives that lead to such a result, so as long as the result is good the rest doesn’t matter (Shafer-Landau, 121). An action or motives could have been wrong at first but if the consequence is positive, creating a good, then that seemly wrong action or motive becomes righteous. The principle of utility helps give insight on this moral standard “that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstance.” (Shafer-Landau, 123). If positive effects are a result then that is all the theory concerns itself with, so if they were negative then whatever action lead to such a result, no matter how righteous it seemed is now considered wrong. The theory also gives value to people only if they have the potential to create good for the majority, so if the person offers no benefit then that person has no value. Once that person losses his or her value they become a hindrance and a waste that is ready for disposal. Basically, the theory of utilitarianism disregards all previous intentions or actions that came before the consequence and only focuses on that consequence itself, given that it’s a positive one, as to create good amongst all to maximize happiness.

In the ethical issue on killing unborn babies with down syndrome the theory of utilitarianism presents both positives and negatives. First of all, the end result of such an act would bring about more productivity on other areas since facilities, doctors and other assets dealing with down syndrome would no longer be required and could be focused on those other areas or dissipated to save money. This result is supported by the theory of utilitarian since they see those with disabilities as a hindrance or waste on society. There is no benefit in wasting assets on people with down syndrome so getting rid of them is for the good of the majority. This theory uses down syndrome unborn babies to an end by disposing of them to create a more productive society. The theory suggests the people who have down syndrome fall under the category of having no human value, which makes it right to dispose of them. The positives of the theory on the issue would be creating a healthier society, and overall a boost in productivity by moving all assets used to accommodate people with down syndrome to other areas such as education. The ending of an unborn down syndrome children also offers to prevent the pain inflicted to the child and for their family, which can also be positive (Julian Quinones 2017). The result of doing such an action creates opportunity for the rest of the people, making such an action justifiable by the theory’s’ standards. As for the negatives, what essentially is happening is the denial of life for countless unborn babies based on their disability, similar to that of the Holocaust, which is then genocide that’s “simply the deliberate, systematic attempt to erase a category of people.”(Will 2018). Discrimination towards people with down syndrome would widely increase, creating pure hate, and the murdering of those with the disability is essentially allowed, which is a horrendous act. Even if those with down syndrome are clearly weaker than the rest, caring for them becomes a burden, thus the sacrifice of unborn babies with down syndrome would create a greater good, as the theory suggests.

Opposing utilitarianism is the theory of deontology, that unlike the utilitarianism theory this theory does not pay attention to the end results but rather it focuses on the individuals’ reasons for an action. (Shafer-Landau 164). To better understand the theory, Kent’s Principle of Humanity can be used, that is to “Act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, always as an end and never merely as a means.” (Immanuel Kant 2017). The principle does not deny anyone from using each other since its how we tend to function, but it does not accept us purely attaining something by exploiting another human being, a very important distinction. When someone decides to attain something, such as a service from a mechanic to fix their car, there is a mutual agreement that the person will use the mechanic to get their car fixed, mean while the mechanic uses the individual as a source of income. If the person simply got his car fixed and left without paying, then he has used the mechanic only as a means to get what they wanted, while the mechanic does not gain anything at all, he was used. When a person is used they are can also be viewed as a thing rather than a human, not taking into account that humans are rational beings “called ‘persons’, because their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves” (Immanuel Kant 2017). This distinction of a human versus a thing strongly suggests that by treating others as a thing they lose humanity in the eyes of the user, which should not be the case since both the user and the used are humans. When someone losses their humanity they no longer hold intrinsic value, meaning those people can be easily replaced. (Immanuel Kant 2017). In short, the theory goes against using people in this from and wants to give value to every human life, no matter the differences between one life among the others.

When it comes to the ethical issue presented, the deontology theory is completely against the killing of unborn babies with down syndrome. The theory values every human life and would not put that life at risk regardless of the beneficial results than may occur. It condemns action taken in the issue due to the countless human life that’s being sacrificed for the improvement of the rest of society. When the Principle of Humanity is applied, it brings about positives and negatives on the issue. First, the positives would be to prevent genocide from occurring, an act know for its pure prejudice, to give those with down syndrome a chance to live a life and offer our protection to them. Considering that there is and will always be a fraction of people who signal out those with down syndrome as a burden to society, this thinking has created the use of genocide (Thiessen 2018). Through the Principle of Humanity, this no longer is the case, since it prevents the degrading method of genocide upon those with down syndrome, an extremely positive effect indeed. Protection is also offered to those with down syndrome, those individuals who they themselves “are speaking out and demanding recognition of their humanity.” (Thiessen 2018). While the theory of utilitarian saw such people as a waste in society, here the people with down syndrome are as important as the rest of society, with a valuable human life that those individuals will get to live out. Some negatives of the theory would be that by supporting those with down syndrome, the majority would not profit, less productivity then when utilitarianism was applied, and that assets would have no guarantee to make their life’s better off or others. Since the problem of down syndrome would still be present, no extra funding would be provided to other areas, thus decreasing potential productivity. The assets to help people with down syndrome would bring about no guarantee in allowing them to be useful to the good of society or even make them have a better life. Although they would be more accommodated, they could still end up living a dreadful life due to their disability, thus providing no benefit to the rest of society.

When it comes to using other people, one must never use a person only as a means to an end. Every single human life is worth as much as the next and by regarding them as nothing more than usable objects, their humanity is stripped away. When people are used the user will see themselves as superior and could lead to discrimination on those with similar qualities. Eventually complete extermination of certain people may be taken to benefit the majority. This may seem good for the majority but for the people who face such a predicament, their lives are now short lived. The world has seen what comes about such actions, especially with the horrendous genocide by Nazis in the holocaust. If society leans in favor of the majority prospering by using others and comes to accept the disposal of those marked as useless, then history will repeat itself, leading humanity as whole to darker times. The very purpose of history is to teach the people not to repeat certain events like those of slavery, genocide, oppression and much more. When society decides to use others by sacrificing them and removing their humanity, they are being nothing more than ignorant people.

Considering the ethical issue of essentially ending the life of a child with down syndrome for the good of society, my views stand with deontology. Furthermore, if I were to be the father of a child with down syndrome, my views would not change, as I would make sure that child survives not only his birth but that he or she lives out their life as they deserve to. Given that I would be a father, my paternal instincts would lead me to fully support that child of mine. I would educate myself fully on how to care for that child by researching the subject and conversing with professionals on down syndrome. My child’s condition would not stop me from giving him or her a good education that works appropriately with said condition. Everyone deserves a chance at life so, who dares to deny even those with down syndrome from living theirs. With this in mind, I would seek help from the down syndrome community but not only to take from them, I would give back with my full support on the issue through attending rally’s, conversing and stating my opinion. The pain of a person with down syndrome is not only physical but emotional, as there are people who discriminate against them with utter hatred. To treat my child with respect, care, and love, as any other parent, would be my mission. Every human life should not be denied its right to live but rather supported to make the best of it.

The ethical issue of down syndrome has an impact upon some members of society or specific groups of people such as, women, minorities and the disabled. There has been a significant impact upon women, which women in Iceland are a prime example. Women are given the option to take a screening to determine if their child will be conceived with down syndrome where “more than 4 out of the 5 pregnant women in Iceland opt for the prenatal screening test.” (Julian Quinones 2017). Taking the test seems ideal given that there is a strong connotation that pre examination helps to find threats to someone but essentially what is happening is the promotion towards abortion. The issue does not just affect women in Iceland but also other women around the world like that of the United States, which has “estimated termination rate for Down Syndrome of 67 percent (1995-2011)” (Julian Quinones 2017). Soon enough the number of children born with down syndrome around the world could start to decrease as women are persuaded to abort their unborn down syndrome child. As for minorities, Latinos for instance, face adversity caused “by the language barriers, networking, collaboration, advocacy, immigration status, and communication. These disparities block Latino access to government services and thwart their rights.” (Bouquett 2019). These odds make it harder for Latinos dealing with a member in their family who has down syndrome, and this disability adds even more stress on an already stressed out-group. Latino down syndrome babies are given a more complicated path to follow, making it much more difficult for them to reach a good educational and healthy life (Ramirez 2018). Since the issue deals with disposing of pre born babies with down syndrome and considering that Latino children aren’t being taken care of in the first place, then most likely at first the issue won’t prioritize them, making them one of the last groups to be persuaded to abort a child with down syndrome. Finally, on the issues’ impact towards the disabled, down syndrome babies are being disposed of in many other nations. For instance, there is France with a high 77 percent and Denmark at 98 percent (Julian Quinones 2017). Since down syndrome is a worldwide problem many nations are making the choice to rid themselves of the problem, attempting to reach a zero percent on down syndrome and 100 percent on the disposal of unborn down syndrome babies. In truth, down syndrome is not the only disability that can be diagnosed and many other unborn children with disabilities are on the list for disposal. Those detectable disabilities include Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis, and other chromosomal abnormalities (Genetic disorders of the fetus). In the end, this issue is a complex ethical issue that has impact upon various groups of society and will continue to show impact amongst those groups.

Bibliography

1. Shafer-Landau, Russ. The Fundamentals of Ethics. Fourth edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018.
2. Julian Quinones, Arijeta Lajka. “‘What Kind of Society Do You Want to Live in?’: Inside the Country Where Down Syndrome Is Disappearing.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 14 Aug. 2017, www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/.
3. Will, George. “Opinion | The Real Down Syndrome Problem: Accepting Genocide.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 14 Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whats-the-real-down-syndrome-problem-the-genocide/2018/03/14/3c4f8ab8-26ee-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html.
4. Thiessen, Marc. “Opinion | When Will We Stop Killing Humans with Down Syndrome?” The Washington Post, WP Company, 9 Mar. 2018, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-will-we-stop-killing-humans-with-down-syndrome/2018/03/08/244c9eba-2306-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html.
5. Immanuel Kant. “Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals.” Edited by Jonathan Bennett, 2017.
6. Bouquett, Annie. “Down Syndrome and Its Startling Impact on Latinos: A Closer Look.” Salud America, 29 Oct. 2019, salud-america.org/down-syndrome-and-its-startling-impact-on-latinos-a-closer-look/.
7. Ramirez, Amelie. “Building Support for Latino Families: A Research Review.” Salud America, 9 Oct. 2018, salud-america.org/building-support-for-latino-families-research/.
8. “Genetic Disorders of the Fetus.” Texas Children’s Hospital, women.texaschildrens.org/program/high-risk-pregnancy-care/conditions/genetic-disorders.