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.
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)
Sample Answer
Kantian Ethics vs. Virtue Ethics on the Conjoined Twins Case
The tragic case of Jodie and Mary presents a fundamental moral conflict: whether it is permissible to sacrifice one innocent life to save another. A Kantian ethicist and a Virtue ethicist would arrive at starkly different conclusions by applying their core principles.
Kantian Ethics: The Morality of Duty
A Kantian ethicist, grounded in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, would likely argue that the operation to separate the twins is morally wrong. Kantian ethics is deontological, meaning the morality of an act lies in the act itself and the intention behind it, not its outcome (consequences).
Core Principles Applied:
Universalizability (Categorical Imperative): The maxim of the action must be one that all rational beings could consistently will to become a universal law. The maxim here is: "It is permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human being to save another." Kant would argue that if this were universalized, it would contradict the very concept of a rational moral system, which is based on respecting life. If everyone could universally will to sacrifice the weak for the benefit of the stronger, the structure of moral trust and respect would collapse.
Impartiality & Reciprocity (Treating Humanity as an End): The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative states we must treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end. Mary, by undergoing the operation, is being treated merely as a means—a biological instrument whose death is necessary and intended to facilitate Jodie's survival. For Kant, intentionally taking an innocent life, regardless of the beneficial outcome, is a violation of the inherent dignity and autonomy of that person. Mary's life has absolute, non-negotiable moral worth.
Duty: The moral action is the one performed from duty, which means obeying the moral law. The duty here is the perfect duty not to commit murder.
Kantian Conclusion: The act of separation is morally forbidden because it requires intentionally violating a perfect duty and treating Mary merely as a means to Jodie's end, regardless of the otherwise positive outcome. "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 of the Metaphysics of Morals).
Virtue Ethics: The Morality of Character
A Virtue ethicist, drawing primarily from Aristotle, would focus not on rules or outcomes, but on what a virtuous agent would do in this tragic scenario. The conclusion here is more nuanced and could potentially support the operation, particularly by appealing to the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) or focusing on the development of virtue.
Core Principles Applied:
Telos & Eudaimonia: Human telos (purpose) is rational activity leading to eudaimonia (flourishing/living well). In this context, the moral dilemma is about whose flourishing to prioritize when both cannot be achieved. The act of separating them, while resulting in Mary's death, allows Jodie to pursue her full human telos, whereas the inaction of "letting nature take its course" condemns both to death, precluding the flourishing of either. A choice that maximizes the potential for eudaimonia is arguably more virtuous.
Practical Wisdom (Phronesis): The virtuous agent uses phronesis to discern the right course of action in a specific, non-ideal situation. A person of practical wisdom would recognize the immense tragedy but conclude that the morally wisest course is to preserve the greater possibility of life and flourishing, acting with courage and compassion rather than retreating to a position of passive non-intervention.
Virtue: The action should reflect a mean between two vices. In this case, the decision lies between the vice of cowardice (refusing to act and letting both die) and the vice of ruthlessness (caring nothing for Mary's life). The virtuous mean would be an act of courageous compassion that maximizes life while minimizing suffering—an act that preserves Jodie's life while accepting Mary's unavoidable death as an unintended side-effect (the DDE may be used here).