Reconsidering "The Prescription to Commit Hateful Acts" as a Critique of Utilitarianism and Its Responses in Medical Ethics and Law

Utilitarianism, as one of the main branches of consequentialism, is a face of normative ethics that provides a criterion for measuring good and bad by emphasizing the results and consequences of actions. One of the criticisms of this approach is that this school of thought may, if necessary, condone wrong actions in order to achieve greater results and benefits. This criticism is also raised in the field of medical ethics and accuses utilitarianism, among other things, of undervaluing the life of one human being in order to achieve the health of many more.

Among the different responses to this objection, two of them have been given attention, criticism and review by the authors of this article: first, a theory that focuses on pattern-based reasoning. Proponents of this theory believe that utilitarianism can respond to 'moral dilemmas' by relying on moral patterns such as 'respect for bodily integrity and ownership of the body'. The second response challenges the realism of manifestations and instances of dilemmas and further argues that this criticism (assuming it is accepted) is not only directed at utilitarianism and that other ethical approaches are also entangled in this objection. Proponents of this argument believe that framing examples in unrealistic conditions makes moral judgment difficult and that examples should be examined in real conditions in order to make more accurate judgments about their right or wrong. The authors of this article have critically examined these two arguments using an analytical-descriptive method.