In the 1970s the A.H. Robins Company marketed the Dalkon Shield, a contraceptive device that proved highly popular. Yet when it was discovered that there were rare cases in which the Dalkon Shield caused blood poisoning, tubal pregnancies, pelvic inflammation, uterine perforations — and in some cases, death — lawsuits forced the Robins company to withdraw the device from the domestic market. Robins subsequently worked out a deal with the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) in which AID used the devices in population-control programs in impoverished countries abroad. Because many women in the Third World die in childbirth, and because children sometimes starve, proponents of this deal reasoned that numerous lives would be saved.
Explain the Greatest Happiness Principle and show how Mill would evaluate the ethics of this policy. Were the actions of the Robins Company and AID morally correct? Or did they do something wrong? Cite possible outcomes of both happiness and unhappiness in making your case. Next, explain the categorical imperative in detail and show how a Kantian would evaluate the ethics of this policy.
Finally, talk about who makes the best case. How you would assess the policy? Is it right or wrong? Discuss.
Grading Criteria for the essay are as follows:
A strong essay will lay out the respective positions in clear and detailed terms, emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of each, and offer convincing reasons to show why one approach is superior to the other. The accounts should display a ready and thorough knowledge of course material. (20-22 points).
An adequate essay will set forth the main outline of the respective positions, though some detail may be lacking and the accounts may not always be clear. The reasons given for supporting one approach over another, while relevant, may not prove compelling. (16-19 points)
An inadequate essay will confuse the positions involved or fail to articulate their key elements; the language may exhibit a poor grasp of the central points of contention. The account might well convey an insufficient understanding of course material or prove otherwise unclear, and the reasons offered in favor of one approach over another will mischaracterize essential philosophical paradigms. (15 points and below).
