Jodie and Mary were conjoined twins, sharing a single heart and a pair of lungs. Without intervention, both would die within six months. If separated, Jodie would live, but Mary would die immediately. The parents refused permission to operate, believing it would be wrong to hasten Mary's death. Devout Catholics said that "nature should take its course" and "If it's God's will that both our children should not survive, then so be it." After a court intervention, the operation was performed over the parents' objection, and as expected, Jodie lived, and Mary died.
For this discussion, we will assume that Jodie can go on to live a normal life. This is not a case where Jodie's death would not harm her.
Utilitarians are consequentialists, and consequentialism is a hotly debated idea among moral philosophers. The idea that we should always act to bring about the best outcome is lovely, but many have found it very objectionable. For example, Kantians are anti-consequentialists and would argue in this case that it is always wrong to sacrifice the life of one to save the life of another. Many virtue ethicists also argue that consequentialists' pursuit of pleasure violates the telos of individual humans. Still, other virtue ethicists may appeal to the doctrine of double effect.
Nonetheless, we will be concerned with which course of action would be right, not with who has the right to decide. Plausibly, the parents had that right, and the court violated it. But we can still ask:
Respond to one of the following prompts:
Contrast what a Kantian would say and what a divine command theorist would say is the morally right thing to do in this case. Use the core principles of Kantian ethics (universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity) and the core principles of divine using the core principles of divine command ethics (goodness, relationship to God(s), and natural law) to explain the difference between how they would conclude what the right thing to do in this case is. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLO 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
Contrast what a Kantian would say and what a virtue ethicist would say is the morally right thing to do in this case. Use the core principles of Kantian ethics (universalizability, duty, impartiality, and reciprocity) and the core principles of virtue ethics (telos, virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom) to explain the difference between how they would conclude the right thing to do in this case. Use appropriate textual evidence to back up your claim. Which of the ethical theories you discussed do you believe provides the best account of what the morally correct action to take is and why? (USLO 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4)
Universalizability (Categorical Imperative, Formula of Universal Law): Kant asks if the maxim of our action could become a universal law without contradiction. The maxim for the operation could be: "It is permissible to intentionally kill an innocent person to save another's life." A Kantian would argue that universalizing this maxim undermines the very concept of a person as an end in themselves. The inherent worth of all rational beings is the bedrock of morality. If we universalized the intentional killing of an innocent to save another, it would treat the life sacrificed (Mary's) as a mere means to the survival of the other (Jodie's), which is strictly forbidden by the Categorical Imperative.
Textual Evidence: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." (Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals). The operation directly violates this, as Mary's death is not a side effect but the necessary means to save Jodie.
Duty and Impartiality: Moral actions are those done from a sense of duty, respecting the moral law. Kantian ethics is fiercely impartial, meaning that moral rules apply equally to everyone, and no person's life is inherently more valuable than another's. The duty here is the perfect duty not to murder (intentionally take an innocent life). Saving Jodie is a commendable goal, but it cannot justify the violation of this perfect duty. The duty not to intentionally kill Mary outweighs the duty to save Jodie.
Reciprocity: Though not a central concept like the Categorical Imperative, the idea of treating others as you would want to be treated reinforces the wrongness of the action. No one would rationally will to be sacrificed, making the action non-reciprocal and thus morally impermissible.
Kantian Conclusion: The morally right thing to do is not to operate. The moral law imposes a perfect duty not to intentionally take an innocent life. To choose to kill Mary to save Jodie is to violate the Categorical Imperative by treating Mary merely as a means, which is an unconditional moral wrong, regardless of the tragic outcome. Nature should take its course because any intervention that makes Mary's death intentional and necessary would be immoral.
Sample Answer
Contrasting Kantian Ethics and Divine Command Theory
The case of Jodie and Mary, the conjoined twins, presents a profound moral dilemma. Contrasting the approaches of Kantian ethics and Divine Command Theory reveals fundamentally different ways of determining the morally right action.
Kantian Ethics: Duty and Universal Law
A Kantian ethicist, following Immanuel Kant, would focus on duty and the moral law, not on consequences. The core principles lead to the conclusion that the operation to separate the twins would be morally wrong.