Sorry i know you guys get loaooooods of these.
PLEASE!!! could someone rate this... i havent had any rated yet and would really love an opinion before tomorrow! Thank you xxx
“A cost to an individual can be justified by a benefit to a group”
Do you agree with this hypothesis? Outline an argument in support and in opposition to this statement. What factors influence the rights of an individual over that of the group?
The statement above attempts to justify an action from a utilitarian perspective. This is, if an action brings about a benefit to the majority then it is perceived as being right and however if it brings about more detriment to the majority then it is seen as being wrong. To a certain extent I would agree with this statement, that a cost to an individual that brings about a significant benefit to a group can be justified in some cases such as voluntary clinical research trials. However in the debate of euthanasia keeping a terminally ill patient alive who wishes to end his or her life peacefully, simply because it suits the majority in my eyes is wrong.
There are numerous cases in which a cost to an individual can be justified by a benefit to a group. As stated above, the clinical trial for new drugs requires various human subjects to test the newly synthesized drugs. In extreme cases subjects may die as a side effect of the drug trial, however their death means that it can be confirmed that the drugs does not work, research can be made for further development so that an effective drug can be synthesized to save people. What’s more, costs could be interpreted not only as a physical cost but an economics cost. In the case of the NHS, a percentage of tax payer’s money goes to funding the NHS so that public health service is available to everyone even though some may use it more than others.
However there are cases where this cannot be justified. Ethic play a large role in this argument where the sanctity of life is precious and everyone deserves equal respect. When considering whether an action is viable or not it is necessary to consider its implications on both parties. Take the case of euthanasia. Relatives of a terminally ill patient may not want their loved on to die however keeping somebody alive in agony against their will is somewhat immoral and their autonomy should be respected. The real cost to the individual is much greater than the cost to the group. Therefore the extent and severity of the cost to the individual and the party influence whether or not an action is justified, e.g. it cannot be said that the merciless killing of disabled people during the holocaust was justified for medical research.