Ethical Egoism: The Case Of The Pacemaker

The largest issue in the case of the pacemaker is whether it is right or wrong to make, of course, but in order to find our moral correctness compass we must define what Utilitarianism is and from whose standpoint we are looking at this issue. John Stuart Mill, who studied under Jeremy Bentham (the father of Utilitarianism), defined Utilitarianism as “actions are right to the degree that they tend to promote the greatest good for the greatest number (Kay 1997, p.7).” Racking and stacking the positives and negatives of this case would take much more than a five page paper. For the sake of time I will be covering specific parts of Utilitarianism and how the case at hand is looked at with them. We will be seeing how Ethical Egoism and Universal
Egoism apply to this case in the first part of my paper. The second part of my paper will show how J. Bentham would feel about this case and finally I will be putting this case through the Utility Test.
Ethical Egoism “the prime consideration is the effects of one’s actions on oneself (Ethical Egoism, 2011).” In this case it would be on each and every board member in the room deciding whether or not to discontinue their product.
There are obviously more disadvantages to continuing to produce their product than there is in discontinuing for the board member as individuals. The egoism brings up thoughts of one’s self and no one else. Thomas Hobbes thought of ethical egoism as if he were the subject; “I am most concerned what is best for me.” “The point worth emphasizing here is that, in ethical egoism, the individual need make no effort to give any considerations to what might be best for others, or what might be best for society” (Ethical Egoism, 2011). Which takes me to my next point that this issue brings up Universal Ethical
Egoism.
Universal Ethical Egoism is “the idea that what everyone ought to do is what is best for them as individuals – even if this harms other people” (Ethical Egoism, 2011). The word ought thrown in there really starts to weigh heavy on the fulcrum and begins to move what ought to be done away from something that is self-centered and more towards what module one was covering, deontology. Back to our situation at hand; the board room. It is in the best interest of all of those business men and women around that table, for their professional and financial futures not to roll the dice on a budding technology. The universal law that would be made if the board room members were to discontinue this product would be one of ‘playing it safe.’ There is no telling whether or not a “pacemaker” will work. But then again, is not best to discontinue this product for those who are waiting for and relying on the technology that the company is producing, no matter what flaws it may have at the moment. So whose point of view are we looking from? The problem at hand spans beyond the realm of Utilitarian Ethics and transverses across all types of ethics. Alas, we must stick to Utilitarianism; and luckily for us the pacemaker issue touches more in this realm. I am certain that J. Bentham would have a great discussion on this particular case. His thought that “we seek pleasure and the avoidance of pain” would be contradicted by his “admitting that people do sometimes act benevolently” (Driver, 2009). While I believe J. Bentham would have understood completely if the board members had discontinued making the pacemakers because of his thoughts on psychological egoism, I do not think that morally he could have accepted their decision as ethical. The positives for the greater good that creating, refining, and producing pacemakers far outweigh the negatives of a few dozen people risking financial stability. Another reason why Bentham would consider stopping the production of pacemakers unethical would be because of his thoughts on act evaluation (Driver, 2009). Risking personal avoidance of pain for the possibility of increased pleasure for many trumps any other decision. “As long as there are these good effects, which are, on balance, better than the effects of any alternative course of action, then the action is the right one” (Driver, 2009).
Our case assignment, to make a piece of hardware for pacemakers or not, indubitably is a conundrum that requires much deliberation and delicate decision making. I feel that there is no decision to where all those affected by this situation would be happy. The black and white of right or wrong is clouded by the grey of ethical responsibilities. The way that we will navigate through the grey to a utilitarian solution and conclusion of right or wrong is by putting the conclusion that making pacemakers is the correct course of action through the Utility Test. We are going to be “more effectively ethical when making workplace decisions” with help from J.B. Hamilton (2009) as he guides use through this test.
The best outcome that we could hope for would be that the research and technology would catch up to the need of a pacemaker, thus saving lives and making millions upon millions of dollars for the investors. If this conclusion would present itself, then obviously continuing to make pacemakers would be a clear cut ethical correctness. Unfortunately, this probability of this happening is slim to none. In our test we are going to have everyone counting as one unit as well as everyone’s feelings counting as one until (if the person’s outcome is negative by our solution then their number will follow suite). Now that you know the parameters I will apply the test.
There are three courses of action that could be taken; continue on making pacemakers with no changes, continue on making pacemakers with certain changes (more regulations and testing), discontinue making pacemakers. To begin with if you continue making the pacemakers with no changes there will be inevitable lawsuits for faulty equipment meaning that production and advancements will slow and money will be lost because of lack of trust from investors and push from media. On the positive note, there will be many lives saved due to this volatile new technology. This will either continue until the technology is outlawed or there is a breakthrough that resurge confidence and sales. In this option board members professional and financial life will be in jeopardy, the individual lives of each person with a pacemaker will be at risk but the overall group of those with pacemakers lives will be made longer. The second option we have is much the same as the first but pressure and financial backing will be put towards research and development of this product. In the short term all of the effects we see in option one will also be the case for option 2. In the long term, the effects will be different in that the money and pressure put on research in development produce a better product and the increase in trust from consumers will profitability for investors. The same number of people will die due to faulty machines until research does their job. In this option the board members professional and financial lives are in jeopardy until technology matches need. When these two do meet though, their professional and financial benefits will skyrocket. Those who have the original pacemakers live will be rolling the dice, but the next generations chances for survival will be much better. The third option we have will stop future lawsuits and possible loss of any additional funds. Without this technology though there will many more lives lost that could have been kept due to the fact that there is nothing out there to keep their hearts going. Also, eventually someone will try to pick up where you left off and create a plausible solution. In this option the board members will be safe but since pacemakers will no longer be available many lives will be shortened. Now that we have seen the possible solutions to this conundrum we will look at the next step in this test and select the course of action which, in good utilitarian fashion, chooses the one that creates the most good for the most amounts of people.
In selecting the most ethical option according to Utilitarian principles, option two would be the best way to go.
Option two, in the short term, would cause stress over money, death, corrective actions. These negative situations would be isolated and seen only as minor setbacks if compared to the larger struggles of this life saving technology. In the long term, option two would save many more lives by producing a more reliable product while also only creating more jobs for employees and it would reward the patient investors with an enormous return.
We’ve gone over a couple of ethical issues that this situation brings up, which are psychological egoism and universal egoism. We’ve put our situation through the Utility Test. We’ve also looked at one of the great minds of Utilitarianism, John Bentham would think about whether to make pacemakers or not. Now it is time for me to come up with my solution. Analyzing the possible action and the possible outcomes, and this is from a Utilitarian standpoint, continuing to produce more pacemakers with regulations is the most ethical decision that can be made from this
situation.

References
Driver, J. (Summer 2009). The History of Utilitarianism, Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2.1. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JerBen
Ethical Egoism. (2011). Retrieved on Aug., 10, 2011 Retrieved from http://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org/ethics/egosim.html
Hamilton, J.B. (2009). Ethics Operationalized for Making Ethical Decisions. Retrieved from http://ethicsops.com