squirrel essay

Legacy of the Spirit The tale of a lost soul set adrift on the ocean of ethical dilemmas

By Zachary Brown April 20th, 2012 for Robert Stephens

It was a dark and stormy night. Anissa Ayala moodily stared out her window, gasping as she saw a squirrel climbing up her favourite tree. She had grown rather fond of her back yard recently. “Oh

no!” said Anissa, all of a sudden. “I think I have chronic myelogenous leukemia!”

The tale you have just read is a briefly summarized version of a true story that

happened to the daughter of Abe and Mary Ayala when she was sixteen. What you didn’t

read are the tragic events that unfolded following the discovery. You see, Anissa would

require a bone marrow transplant to survive the cursed affliction, and not a single

member of her family had compatible bone marrow cells. According to the doctors, “she

had only three to five years to live. Only a bone marrow transplant could save her.”

(Burnor & Raley, 124) Her parents, transfixed by the horror of what had come to pass,

searched everywhere for a compatible bone marrow, but the National Marrow Donor

Program was unable to help. That’s when they had an idea: They would give birth to a

new child, and then use that child’s bone marrow to save Anissa, if it was compatible.

Certainly, this is a unique plan. However, the question is, is it morally right? Is it ethically

correct to give birth to a child simply to use that child’s body to save someone else? An

intriguing question indeed, and that is the question that this essay will attempt to shed

light on.

Anissa pondered her parent’s plan of action. “I sure would like to live!” she said. “Being alive makes me happy!” She smiled at the thought of continuing to exist. Her thoughts then turned to her

potential new younger sister. “Well, it would suck for her to be created just to save someone else, and I don’t want her to go through the painful process of losing her bone marrow…”

The dilemma that Anissa faced seemed perilously undecidable. However, if we

analyze Anissa’s thoughts, it becomes clear that she is using a Utilitarianism method of

thinking. You see, whenever a utilitarian comes face to face with a moral dilemma, they

try to determine which option will produce the greatest overall utility. (Burnor & Raley)

By Zachary Brown Legacy of the Spirit () for Robert Stephens

Legacy of the Spirit (Page 2) April 20th, 2012

In this case, the utility that would come from a decision would be measured in happiness.

If we begin by examining the effects that going through with the plan would have on the

baby, we can determine a few things. First of all, the baby would go through intense pain

during the procedure, and that would be bad. Secondly, the baby might learn one day

that she was only created to save her sister, and her parents never wanted her. That

would be sad. So, overall, we can determine that going through with this plan would

make the baby a bit unhappy. But wait! Now we must look at the effects it would have on

Anissa. If her parents go through with the plan, then Anissa will get to live the rest of her

life, and that would make her very happy! The question a utilitarian would ask is this: Is

the happiness that Anissa will gain from being able to live the rest of her life greater than

the unhappiness the baby would get from being born just to painfully have its bone

marrow tissue stolen from it? While that would truly suck for the baby, the immense joy

Anissa would gain from simply being alive vastly outweights the disadvantages to the

baby. Therefore, a utilitarian would support the plan to give birth to a new baby.

“Hey! Hey!” Anissa heard a voice calling out. She looked around everywhere until she realized it was coming from outside. “Squirrel? Is that you?” said Anissa to the whiskered creature that was

ascending her large wooden friend. (The tree) “Actually, the name’s Kant,” said the squirrel. “And I’ve gotta say, lady, I don’t like what’s goin’ on in that little head of yours!” Anissa was

astounded. “Yeah, I know you think you’re doin’ the right thing by taking a baby’s bone marrow…But let me ask you this: Whaddya suppose would happen if every time someone needed

an organ or something, their parents gave birth to a new child just to save them?”

It’s impossible to say whether or not Kant was truly reincarnated as a squirrel, but

nevertheless, this furry little critter brings up a good point, and in doing so, he is

effectively invoking Kant’s principle of universal law. Allow me to explain. When a

Kantian wants to figure out whether or not an act is morally right, they use Kant’s rules

about the categorical imperative. Kant says that a categorical imperative is something

that you must do, under any circumstance. (Kant, 30) Therefore, a categorical imperative

can be followed under any situation, and it must be universal. To figure out if an act is

universalizable, we must ask the following question: If everyone did that act with the

same intent, would the act be consistent? Or would there be a problem? So, let’s look at


Legacy of the Spirit (Page 3) April 20th, 2012

the current situation. Imagine if, every time someone had a sick child, they gave birth to a

new child in the hopes of saving the first one. Well, I can see a whole bunch of problems

that might arise! First of all, there would be a large risk of overpopulation, since there

would be so many more children being born. Secondly, the value of human life would

seriously decrease, if many people were born simply to save others. Not to mention the

fact that with more children being born, there’d be more children at risk. What do you do

if the child you gave birth to to save your first child becomes sick as well? Have another

one? As you can see, universalizing this situation only causes problems, and therefore, we

can conclude that a Kantian would not be alright with it.

“Oh squirrel…” said Anissa, “why must you always universalize everything? Can’t you see that doing this would be very helpful to me, at very little cost? The consequence would be undoubtedly

good!” The squirrel turned to her with its beady little eyes and replied: “Consequences? Bah! I care not about consequences! I see only intentions, for I am Kant. And your intentions are to use a

poor little baby to save your own life!”

Anissa and the squirrel were at odds. Anissa, being a utilitarian, was only

concerned with the situation at hand. She had weighed the benefits and the

consequences, and she had decided that taking the baby’s bone marrow would be the best

course of action. The squirrel (who may or may not be Kant reborn) is not so short

sighted, and he is able to discern a key problem with the Ayalas’ actions: By using the

baby to save Anissa, they are using that baby as a means to an end. By Kant’s own

definition, a mean is something that is “not valued for its own sake but rather because it

is useful for attaining some valued end”. (Burnor & Raley) Kant forbids using other people

as means. A person should always be an end. (Something that is “valued for its own sake”)

The act in question might have a good consequence, but the intention behind it is

fundamentally immoral, and therefore, the act is wrong.

“It seems we are at a standstill, Squirrel,” proclaimed Anissa. “And I assure you, I will not back down.” With these words, Anissa slammed her window shut and closed the curtains. The squirrel could no longer bother her, and she was free to execute her plans. “Very well,” said the squirrel to

himself, and he scurried back to his hole, knowing that he had the moral high ground. After all, he was Kant… Or was he?


The climax of this heart wrenching tale perfectly matches my own feelings

regarding the case. I must admit that I believe Kant has the better argument here. I can

understand why Anissa feels the way she does, but when I try to be objective, I

immediately think of the consequences if this sort of thing became normal. The principle

of universal law makes this clear. If everyone did this whenever their child was sick, there

would just be so many problems, and things would become so much messier. And, I also

agree with the principal of ends. It’s just wrong to use a helpless child like that. I

understand that the consequence is good, but the act itself is just clearly wrong. That

said, I can’t fault Anissa’s parents for doing what they did. In that way, I am like the

squirrel. I would not fight Anissa’s choice, because I understand why she is doing it. I

would scurry away and let her do it, because I know that if I were in the same situation, I

would probably do the same thing. But I still think it’s messed up. Therefore, in

conclusion, I must admit that I can’t fault the parents for doing what they did. They were

doing the best to save their daughter, and I don’t think any ethical theory could have

stopped them. I choose not to judge them or evaluate their decision. Were there a law in

place to stop parents from doing such things, it would probably be just. However, such a

thing does not exist, and the choice always remains in the hands of the people. I don’t

think anyone could be expected to be objective enough to let their daughter die, if they

knew they had a chance of saving her. That said, someone truly objective would probably

let the child die, knowing that the proposed solution was immoral.

“Oh my god, mom! You only gave birth to me so that you could save my older sister!” said Marissa-Eve, fifteen years later. “I can’t believe it! Now I will spend the rest of my life knowing that I wasn’t wanted!” Anissa quietly observed her sister’s outburst, knowing that it was entirely justified. “Did I do the right thing?” wondered Anissa, as she sucked on a strawberry-flavoured

lollipop. “Was the squirrel right? Could it be that utilitarianism was not the solution?” Alas, Anissa would never know the answer, and the eternal debate would carry on endlessly. It makes one wonder, is it truly possible for us to judge right and wrong? Who among us can accurately

decide if an act is moral or not? We must all look to the inner squirrel in our soul for answers, and we can only hope that, at the end of the day, we are at peace with ourselves.

Bibliography Burnor&Raley. Ethical Choices. Retrieved from Oxford University Press:

http://www.us.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780195332957/

Kant, I. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.

Burnor, Richard – Raley, Yvonne Ethical Choices: An Introduction to Moral Philosophy with Cases New York: Oxford U.P. 2011

squirrel essay

Documents