Theory Number One Ethical Theory Analysis

As a doctor at St. Als I received five patients in one day. All patients were in a car accident and all patients that came to the hospital under my care were vital members of our community. All needing organs replaced. While at the same time I had another patient come into the hospital who was a homeless man, who had no identification, no family. In that moment there was a thought, what if that patient could save the lives of the five I needed to save? What if I could risk one life to save five?

Using the four major theories I began to analyze my decision, I will examine each theory and compare and contract each theory to help guide my decision on what is morally correct. Whether I will put my own interest in front of my patients or whether

The theory brakes down that I could do what is in the best interest of myself. I could do the surgery and make sure that one patient saves five. As a doctor it would be a very heroic measure. I would be talked about and people could even write articles and I would be comes well known in the community and in the medical field. Regardless of the homeless man and his "unknown" situation he could make a great sacrifice for me and my patients.

Theory number two act utilitarianism gave me the most interest to the situation at hand. Here we have a theory that states, a person's act is right only if that act produces the best possible results. Well yes, this is the one I am looking at. I am looking at this homeless man like he can serve a purpose for five people and that will service then morally this is correct, because the outcome would serve the act. Saving five people who will benefit from this outcome by not only getting to live, but get back to serving the community. How can this be a wrong thing? I would be giving back.

Theory number three comes from the natural law theory no this one will be a hard one to digest for it is derived from the natural good of humans. The idea that

How do we as humans decide what we do is morally right or wrong. If by letting the homeless man die am I as a doctor ignoring my oath to the medical world and letting someone die to serve the purpose of others? Or do I see it as someone is saving five others? But what about the homeless man, what makes his life less valuable to me or anyone else because he is not an upstanding member or our community, he is after all human. As a doctor it would be easy to say that the homeless man died from whatever ailed him and I could go on as if this was the natural order of things. But could I then wake up the next day and really look at myself as someone who did what was good.

The fourth theory is Kant’s deontological theory, he states that an act can be morally bad, but it can lead to a good outcome. This is the one that has grabbed my attention the most. If I sacrifice one for the good of the others is it bad because in the end five lives will be saved. On the other hand, does that mean that someone else's life is less valuable because they have something everyone else wants.

After going through all the theory's and the thought process behind each theory I think that I can now start to see where they are similar and where they are