CASE B

Word Count: 1944

The situation of Jono Lancaster presents an ethical dilemma of a genetically
diseased father who is unsure of having a biological, adopted, or genetically
screened child. This paper will then try to tackle the case with Kantian ethics.
Through this paper, we will see how a Kantian would respond to the ethical dilemma
that Jono Lancaster is facing.
Before going into the case, we them must discuss the theory of Kantian
ethics. The Kantian theory is founded on the core value of autonomy, which John
Christman understands as the capacity of every human being to their own life, to be
able to choose what to do through their own reasons and motives without having to
be manipulated or distorted by external forces. (John Christman, SEP). Having
autonomy means having full control of all your actions. At the same time, you will
also have to respect the autonomy of others to let them decide on their own.
As Deontology judges the reason for an action and the persons adherence to
his or her own set of rules, Kant presents maxims. These are the rules of which
people will follow in doing their actions. It is our reason for doing the acts that we do.
It poses as a rule for everyone to follow and the basis for why people act in a certain
way. Deontology and Kantian ethics look at these maxims to judge the morality of
the act. Maxims help us decide the actions we do and Kantian ethics tells us that
these maxims must also be able to be universalized, which means that everyone
must accept these maxims.
As discussed in class, the Categorical Imperative is the central concept of the
Kantian Theory (Cleofas, 2014). As human beings, we act for certain reasons and/or
rules. Most often than not, we have certain purposes in doing the actions we do
everyday. We act in duty when we do morally good actions (Korsgaard, xii).
We must also not fail to differentiate Categorical Imperatives from
Hypothetical Imperatives. Hypothetical Imperatives are rules that only apply to
certain sets or groups of people. However, Categorical Imperatives are imperatives
that apply to all human beings (Cleofas, 2014).
In forming these maxims, we have to look if there are contradictions or if the
maxim is an immoral one. Having an immoral maxim is dangerous both for the doer
of the action and also for the people around. First, we must avoid using the Logical
Contradiction Interpretation because according to Aristotle, it is saying that
something is but at the same time, it isnt (Cleofas, 2014). It is saying that when we
do an action, we dont really solve the problem we want to fix in the first place. For
example, the maxim is for everyone to tell the truth but this is a world where no one
tells the truth. This is the dilemma presented for the LCI, which forms a contradiction
between our actions and the universalized truth.
Next, the Teleological Contradiction Interpretation goes against the natural
harmony and purpose of humanity (Cleofas, 2014). In a way, a maxim that has a
teleological contradiction means that it disrupts a system of harmony that humans
have. For example, killing the baby that cries all night in order to get enough sleep.
In this example, killing the baby goes against the natural harmony of humanity. This
is problematic because when we follow this maxim, we would still not get enough
sleep because we would feel the pain of losing a human being, moreover, our baby.
Killing babies also defeats the purpose of humanity and therefore it poses as a
Teleological Contradiction Interpretation.
Lastly, the Practical Contradiction Interpretation is the contradiction between
the persons end goal and the actions he uses in order to get that goal (Cleofas,
2014). For example, when you are the second choice to the position you have been
wanting and dreaming for a long time and you form a maxim to kill the first choice
person in order to get the position you want, it will not really solve your situation
because that will not stop the third choice to kill you once you are already the first
choice. When your goal is to get your dream position, the means that you used in
order to achieve the goal is also the reason why you will eventually not achieve it.
In order to avoid creating these contradictions, Korsgaard proposes the
thought experiment. This means that once a maxim is constructed, we should
imagine a world where everyone does that maxim. This would help us avoid having
immoral maxims that would just eventually keep us from achieving the goal we seek.
The thought experiment will bring us to the formulation of the universal law.
The universal law simply states that everyone will do the maxim we propose to do. It
hypothetically brings a world where people would follow a maxim or would do certain
actions because of the certain reasons. Although, as discussed in class, people
should not only follow these maxims but for them to accept them (Cleofas, 2014).
Human beings have his or her own autonomy of their decisions. Kantian
ethics values what each and every persons autonomy and therefore, we should not
use others as mere means but ends. Using people as mere means means that we
use other people as a tool in order to get what we want or to achieve the end goal.
When we do this, we fail to accept the fact that other people can also think for
themselves and we also disrespect the autonomy that they have. Treating people as
ends means that we can only leave the decision to act to them and we do not exert
any force in them to do the action we want them to do. This is the Formula of
Humanity that focuses on giving others the opportunity to decide on their own.
Therefore we must not take advantage of people with vulnerable autonomy, whom
cannot fully choose the right decision properly.
The Kingdom of Ends is a world where all humans treat each other as ends
and not as just mere means (Cleofas, 2014). This means that everyone will have full
autonomy of deciding for them and not just be a tool that is used for anothers end.
With the theory explained above, we can now tackle the situation of the case
with the use of Kantian Ethics. The case presents a dilemma of Jono, who doesnt
know what to do regarding his plan to have a family with his partner, Laura. In taking
on this case, we must answer the central question, to what extent do parents with
genetic diseases affect theirs and their future childrens autonomy? To try to
answer this question we must first identify the maxim that must be used by Jono in
deciding what he and Laura should do in having a family together. After having the
maxim, we will examine how the maxim can be universalized and if everyone can
accept it. Next, we will try to look at how this maxim will use people as ends and not
mere means. Lastly, we will try to see is this maxim can produce a Kingdom of Ends,
where no one is treated less than an end.
For this case, Jono and Laura can follow the maxims, to naturally conceive
the child in order to have a family and to nurture the child so that he or she can
have a worth while life in order to decide on how they can solve their ethical
dilemma to create a family.
If these maxims are to be accepted by everyone, we will not be able to
prevent the future children from maximizing their human capacity to live. If Jono and
Laura choose to adopt or to go through a genetic screening, they instantly do not let
their future children to live their own life as human beings. It is a manipulation of their
vulnerable autonomy in order for them to have a better life. Although this would be
good, which a consequentialist will favor, we use the children bought about by the
adoption and genetic screening as mere means for our end of having a better life for
theirs and us. Therefore, Jono and Laura should follow these maxims so they can let
their children develop their own autonomy through their support. This will give their
future children the opportunity to mature and to live a better life through their full
autonomy.
These maxims would also let Jono and Laura treat others as an end in their
hopes of having a happy family together. When they adopt a child or if they use
genetic screening, they are using the child as a mere mean to have a happy family.
They are already manipulation their future childs vulnerable autonomy in order to
gain their hopes of a happy family. The child hasnt been given the chance to
develop his or her own autonomy yet and Jono and Laura already takes advantage
of the situation in order to get what they want---a better live for them and their future
children.
In the Kingdom of Ends, where people treat each other as an end, Jono and
Laura should accept the fact that they should naturally conceive their child with out
any manipulation. The future child will be an end in a way that he or she will be able
to use his or her own autonomy on how to live his or her own life with the guidance
of Jono and Laura. If Jono is trying to avoid having to feel inner turmoil and self-
questioning and he uses the adoption and genetic screening, he uses these as mere
means in order to get what he wants and then this will make him develop a sense of
dependency to means of to achieving what he wants.
In contrast to the girl who gave her sentiments regarding her disease that was
passed on to her, a Kantian would argue that as human beings, we have full
autonomy of our lives and we can choose whether or not to live a good or bad life
with the situation that we have. As for her dad, he also has autonomy to nurture his
daughter to live a better life than what shes been having. This is where the moral
deliberation of the Kantian theory is more ambition than the consequentialist
because we let everyone use their full autonomy and treat them as ends in
themselves. It is ambitious to the fact that not everyone can be able to achieve the
goal of living a good life. This is what Kant recognizes the absence of duty and
therefore results to having the person to avoid the act on his or her duty (Korsgaard,
xiii).
I think that the Kantian would have made the morally right response because
through conceiving the child naturally means not disrupting the way things ought to
be. If Jono and Laura would have a diseased child then that must have been
something ought to happen for them. Choosing to adopt or to go through genetic
screening would mean that they are escaping to the fact that they might have a
diseased child. With the Kantian choice, they are accepting the way things ought to
be and by realizing their full autonomy as human beings to live through that
situations and obstacles life throws at them. If they would do something that would
help them and their future children to have better lives, than it would develop a sense
of dependency to something and therefore, not being able to exercise their full
autonomy.
References
Christine Korsgaard. Introduction. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
Trans. Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. vii-
xxv.
Cleofas, Jacklyn A. Week 7 PowerPoint Presentation Philosophy 104: Foundations
of Moral Value. 2014. PowerPoint Presentation.
Cleofas, Jacklyn A. Week 8 PowerPoint Presentation Philosophy 104: Foundations
of Moral Value. 2014. PowerPoint Presentation.

Gabriel Francisco de la Rama Mendoza
112602