What is a time when you or someone you know of experienced a conflict between duty to self and loyalty to the community? What would logical reasoning say should be done in that case? Why that? What would an Ethical Egoist say to do? Why would they say to do that? Note what you feel is the best course of action.
I worked in donor services evaluating and allocating organs. This involved dealing with dying people every day. I have a deep respect for the families that lose a child and decide to donate their organs but can also understand that everything moves very fast from having a healthy toddler to talking about saving other children. I do not think many parents are ready to make that shift in perspective and that should not be forced. Many times, other employees and management would want me to approach the doctor to extend the child’s life support to give the parents more time to “decide”, even if it meant the child was not comfortable, their organ viability would go down due to multi organ failure, and the family unit would suffer not having closure. The community that I was in (my job and colleagues) would dictate that I request time from the doctors, and extend the life of the child, as that was company policy and normal practice, but duty to self dictated that act was immoral.
Logical reasoning would say the more organs that can be donated, the better that will be for society. This is because the act that benefits the most people would be the most beneficial. This means prolonging the life on one individual or child to save multiple others may be beneficial to society because it means more children will be helped or possibly cured of illness. The family is not seeing rationally when their child is dying due to a flood of emotions, so increasing time to decide to donate will help them make that choice.
An ethical egoist would dictate that we should always do what we want to do, not to better serve society or our community (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). This is a philosophical justification to do what is best for oneself. (Shaver, 2023). Ethical egoist say this because they argue everyone is aware of his or her own needs, and is placed to pursue them effectively (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). They also say “charity” and “looking out for others” are invasions of privacy and degrading.
I felt my best course of action was to leave the job completely. In this case, if I stayed loyal to this group, I feared it would compromise my ethics and my morals. I fell more on the side of the ethical egoist in this situation that I knew what was best for me, and for my mental health, and it was not pursuing the “greater good” at the expense of grieving families and possible suffering toddlers.
What is a time when you or someone you know of experienced a conflict between duty to self and loyalty to the community? What would logical reasoning say should be done in that case? Why that? What would an Ethical Egoist say to do? Why would they say to do that? Note what you feel is the best course of action.
I worked in donor services evaluating and allocating organs. This involved dealing with dying people every day. I have a deep respect for the families that lose a child and decide to donate their organs but can also understand that everything moves very fast from having a healthy toddler to talking about saving other children. I do not think many parents are ready to make that shift in perspective and that should not be forced. Many times, other employees and management would want me to approach the doctor to extend the child’s life support to give the parents more time to “decide”, even if it meant the child was not comfortable, their organ viability would go down due to multi organ failure, and the family unit would suffer not having closure. The community that I was in (my job and colleagues) would dictate that I request time from the doctors, and extend the life of the child, as that was company policy and normal practice, but duty to self dictated that act was immoral.
Logical reasoning would say the more organs that can be donated, the better that will be for society. This is because the act that benefits the most people would be the most beneficial. This means prolonging the life on one individual or child to save multiple others may be beneficial to society because it means more children will be helped or possibly cured of illness. The family is not seeing rationally when their child is dying due to a flood of emotions, so increasing time to decide to donate will help them make that choice.
An ethical egoist would dictate that we should always do what we want to do, not to better serve society or our community (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). This is a philosophical justification to do what is best for oneself. (Shaver, 2023). Ethical egoist say this because they argue everyone is aware of his or her own needs, and is placed to pursue them effectively (Rachels & Rachels, 2019). They also say “charity” and “looking out for others” are invasions of privacy and degrading.
I felt my best course of action was to leave the job completely. In this case, if I stayed loyal to this group, I feared it would compromise my ethics and my morals. I fell more on the side of the ethical egoist in this situation that I knew what was best for me, and for my mental health, and it was not pursuing the “greater good” at the expense of grieving families and possible suffering toddlers.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.