O'Neill, scope for refusal, Kantian ethics, international NGO Non-Governmental Organization, disaster relief, Singer, utilitarianism, ethics
When O'Neill uses the phrase "Scope for refusal" in relation to Kantian ethics, he refers to the idea that every individual should have the independence to have a say in the actions that will affect them. In other words, an individual should be able to consent to all the actions done to them. This means that the receiver of an action must always be involved in the action being performed on them because, otherwise, it is unethical.
An example that perfectly illustrates the "scope for refusal" is a case where, for example, a natural disaster such as a flood strikes a country.
[...] O'Neill's Kantian deontological approach is more correct than utilitarianism. This is because it focuses more on moral correctness and respect for the rights of others. This offers a solid basis for making ethical decisions and protects the rights and dignity of those involved. This means that whatever the outcome an action brings, whether good or bad, people will still be able to co-exist peacefully due to the respect and dignity maintained during the decision-making process. While utilitarianism theory may have its advantages, it does not consider what comes after the outcome. [...]
[...] This example shows the complicated ethical factors to be considered when respecting autonomy while trying to do what is right. A passage from the reading that I found interesting was, "For example, what happens if a living patient needs an organ, say a liver, from a dead person? Perhaps the dead never gave consent, but using his or her kidney would mean saving the other's life. Surely the doctor would be using the dead person as a means of accomplishing a task, but should not be if it means saving the life of another?" (Shafer-Landau 2013). [...]
[...] O'Neill's and Singer's approaches may suit different situations at different times. However, it is always essential to consider the people affected by action and do what is best for them. Works Cited Caviola, Lucius, et al. "Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people? Harming animals and humans for the greater good." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 150.5 2021: 1008. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2020-77543-001 Mihailov, Emilian. "Measuring impartial beneficence: Kantian perspective on the Oxford Utilitarianism Scale." Review of Philosophy and Psychology 14.3 2023: 989-1004. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-021-00600-2 Shafer-Landau, Russ. [...]
[...] In other words, an individual should be able to consent to all the actions done to them. This means that the receiver of an action must always be involved in the action being performed on them because otherwise, it is unethical. An example that will perfectly illustrate the "scope for refusal" is a case where, for example, a natural disaster such as a flood strikes a country. The people in that country need help, and the country's resources are insufficient to care for every affected citizen. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
