Final answer:
The claim that Sandel discusses the benefits of lung cancer as an objection to utilitarianism is false. Utilitarianism involves maximizing happiness for the most people, leading to challenging decisions in healthcare resource management. The theory is divided into Act and Rule Utilitarianism, with each approach dealing with the ethics of truthfulness and long-term trust in medical contexts.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement "Sandel talks about the benefits of lung cancer as an objection to utilitarianism" is false. Michael Sandel, a well-known philosopher, does not argue that there are benefits to lung cancer; rather, utilitarian ethics may involve difficult choices such as allocating resources efficiently, which can lead to controversial judgments like prioritizing the use of medical equipment for those with better chances of recovery.
Utilitarianism is a theory in ethics advocating that the best action is the one that maximizes utility, typically defined as that which produces the greatest well-being of the greatest number of people. This theory is relevant when considering the distribution of healthcare resources, such as in the case of a patient with a terminal illness. There are two approaches to utilitarianism: Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarians focus on the consequences of individual actions, while Rule Utilitarians consider the long-term consequences of following rules of conduct.
Lung cancer is one example where utilitarian principles may come into play. It is noteworthy that lung cancer can spread to the brain and cause significant health issues. Moreover, some cancer treatments can damage normal tissue due to their aggressive nature in targeting both cancerous and healthy cells.