Legacy of the Spirit

The tale of a lost soul set adrift on the ocean of ethical dilemmas It was a dark and stormy night. Anissa Ayala moodily stared out her window, gasping as she saw a squirrel climbing up her favourite tree. She had grown rather fond of her back yard recently. Oh no! said Anissa, all of a sudden. I think I have chronic myelogenous leukemia! The tale you have just read is a briefly summarized version of a true story that happened to the daughter of Abe and Mary Ayala when she was sixteen. What you didnt read are the tragic events that unfolded following the discovery. You see, Anissa would require a bone marrow transplant to survive the cursed affliction, and not a single member of her family had compatible bone marrow cells. According to the doctors, she had only three to five years to live. Only a bone marrow transplant could save her. (Burnor & Raley, 124) Her parents, transfixed by the horror of what had come to pass, searched everywhere for a compatible bone marrow, but the National Marrow Donor Program was unable to help. Thats when they had an idea: They would give birth to a new child, and then use that childs bone marrow to save Anissa, if it was compatible. Certainly, this is a unique plan. However, the question is, is it morally right? Is it ethically correct to give birth to a child simply to use that childs body to save someone else? An intriguing question indeed, and that is the question that this essay will attempt to shed light on. Anissa pondered her parents plan of action. I sure would like to live! she said. Being alive makes me happy! She smiled at the thought of continuing to exist. Her thoughts then turned to her potential new younger sister. Well, it would suck for her to be created just to save someone else, and I dont want her to go through the painful process of losing her bone marrow The dilemma that Anissa faced seemed perilously undecidable. However, if we analyze Anissas thoughts, it becomes clear that she is using a Utilitarianism method of thinking. You see, whenever a utilitarian comes face to face with a moral dilemma, they try to determine which option will produce the greatest overall utility. (Burnor & Raley) By Zachary Brown

April 20th, 2012

for Robert Stephens

By Zachary Brown

Legacy of the Spirit (Page 2)

for Robert Stephens

In this case, the utility that would come from a decision would be measured in happiness. If we begin by examining the effects that going through with the plan would have on the baby, we can determine a few things. First of all, the baby would go through intense pain during the procedure, and that would be bad. Secondly, the baby might learn one day that she was only created to save her sister, and her parents never wanted her. That would be sad. So, overall, we can determine that going through with this plan would make the baby a bit unhappy. But wait! Now we must look at the effects it would have on Anissa. If her parents go through with the plan, then Anissa will get to live the rest of her life, and that would make her very happy! The question a utilitarian would ask is this: Is the happiness that Anissa will gain from being able to live the rest of her life greater than the unhappiness the baby would get from being born just to painfully have its bone marrow tissue stolen from it? While that would truly suck for the baby, the immense joy Anissa would gain from simply being alive vastly outweights the disadvantages to the baby. Therefore, a utilitarian would support the plan to give birth to a new baby. Hey! Hey! Anissa heard a voice calling out. She looked around everywhere until she realized it was coming from outside. Squirrel? Is that you? said Anissa to the whiskered creature that was ascending her large wooden friend. (The tree) Actually, the names Kant, said the squirrel. And Ive gotta say, lady, I dont like whats goin on in that little head of yours! Anissa was astounded. Yeah, I know you think youre doin the right thing by taking a babys bone marrowBut let me ask you this: Whaddya suppose would happen if every time someone needed an organ or something, their parents gave birth to a new child just to save them? Its impossible to say whether or not Kant was truly reincarnated as a squirrel, but nevertheless, this furry little critter brings up a good point, and in doing so, he is effectively invoking Kants principle of universal law. Allow me to explain. When a Kantian wants to figure out whether or not an act is morally right, they use Kants rules about the categorical imperative. Kant says that a categorical imperative is something that you must do, under any circumstance. (Kant, 30) Therefore, a categorical imperative can be followed under any situation, and it must be universal. To figure out if an act is universalizable, we must ask the following question: If everyone did that act with the same intent, would the act be consistent? Or would there be a problem? So, lets look at

Legacy of the Spirit (Page 2)

April 20th, 2012

By Zachary Brown

Legacy of the Spirit (Page 3)

for Robert Stephens

the current situation. Imagine if, every time someone had a sick child, they gave birth to a new child in the hopes of saving the first one. Well, I can see a whole bunch of problems that might arise! First of all, there would be a large risk of overpopulation, since there would be so many more children being born. Secondly, the value of human life would seriously decrease, if many people were born simply to save others. Not to mention the fact that with more children being born, thered be more children at risk. What do you do if the child you gave birth to to save your first child becomes sick as well? Have another one? As you can see, universalizing this situation only causes problems, and therefore, we can conclude that a Kantian would not be alright with it. Oh squirrel said Anissa, why must you always universalize everything? Cant you see that doing this would be very helpful to me, at very little cost? The consequence would be undoubtedly good! The squirrel turned to her with its beady little eyes and replied: Consequences? Bah! I care not about consequences! I see only intentions, for I am Kant. And your intentions are to use a poor little baby to save your own life! Anissa and the squirrel were at odds. Anissa, being a utilitarian, was only concerned with the situation at hand. She had weighed the benefits and the consequences, and she had decided that taking the babys bone marrow would be the best course of action. The squirrel (who may or may not be Kant reborn) is not so short sighted, and he is able to discern a key problem with the Ayalas actions: By using the baby to save Anissa, they are using that baby as a means to an end. By Kants own definition, a mean is something that is not valued for its own sake but rather because it is useful for attaining some valued end. (Burnor & Raley) Kant forbids using other people as means. A person should always be an end. (Something that is valued for its own sake) The act in question might have a good consequence, but the intention behind it is fundamentally immoral, and therefore, the act is wrong. It seems we are at a standstill, Squirrel, proclaimed Anissa. And I assure you, I will not back down. With these words, Anissa slammed her window shut and closed the curtains. The squirrel could no longer bother her, and she was free to execute her plans. Very well, said the squirrel to himself, and he scurried back to his hole, knowing that he had the moral high ground. After all, he was Kant Or was he?

Legacy of the Spirit (Page 3)

April 20th, 2012

By Zachary Brown

Legacy of the Spirit (Page 4)

for Robert Stephens

The climax of this heart wrenching tale perfectly matches my own feelings regarding the case. I must admit that I believe Kant has the better argument here. I can understand why Anissa feels the way she does, but when I try to be objective, I immediately think of the consequences if this sort of thing became normal. The principle of universal law makes this clear. If everyone did this whenever their child was sick, there would just be so many problems, and things would become so much messier. And, I also agree with the principal of ends. Its just wrong to use a helpless child like that. I understand that the consequence is good, but the act itself is just clearly wrong. That said, I cant fault Anissas parents for doing what they did. In that way, I am like the squirrel. I would not fight Anissas choice, because I understand why she is doing it. I would scurry away and let her do it, because I know that if I were in the same situation, I would probably do the same thing. But I still think its messed up. Therefore, in conclusion, I must admit that I cant fault the parents for doing what they did. They were doing the best to save their daughter, and I dont think any ethical theory could have stopped them. I choose not to judge them or evaluate their decision. Were there a law in place to stop parents from doing such things, it would probably be just. However, such a thing does not exist, and the choice always remains in the hands of the people. I dont think anyone could be expected to be objective enough to let their daughter die, if they knew they had a chance of saving her. That said, someone truly objective would probably let the child die, knowing that the proposed solution was immoral. Oh my god, mom! You only gave birth to me so that you could save my older sister! said Marissa-Eve, fifteen years later. I cant believe it! Now I will spend the rest of my life knowing that I wasnt wanted! Anissa quietly observed her sisters outburst, knowing that it was entirely justified. Did I do the right thing? wondered Anissa, as she sucked on a strawberry-flavoured lollipop. Was the squirrel right? Could it be that utilitarianism was not the solution? Alas, Anissa would never know the answer, and the eternal debate would carry on endlessly. It makes one wonder, is it truly possible for us to judge right and wrong? Who among us can accurately decide if an act is moral or not? We must all look to the inner squirrel in our soul for answers, and we can only hope that, at the end of the day, we are at peace with ourselves.

Bibliography
Burnor&Raley. Ethical Choices. Retrieved from Oxford University Press: http://www.us.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195332957/ Kant, I. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Burnor, Richard Raley, Yvonne Ethical Choices: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases New York: Oxford U.P. 2011