Under the principals of Utilitarianism, the entire process of reversing permanent birth control, conceiving a child on the possibility of having compatible bone marrow, and putting an infant though a painful surgery to save the life of an older sister can be moral but not always depending on how you look at the case. The ethical questions raised by Kant's Categorical Imperative are not so easy to see and to answer. With each of the categorical imperatives there are deeper question that complicate the issue. But in the end it is seen that the means are a morally sound decision.
             According to Mill, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure," (34). This is the definition of Utilitarianism. The actions of the Ayala family are moral according to Act Utilitarianism, or the principal of utility based on the individual. The consequences of their action produced the greatest happiness despite the pain the parents suffered from the operation to reverse their birth control and the pain their daughter suffered while donating the bone marrow, a memory she does not have. Further there is certain suffering without conceiving the infant because the older sister would certainly die. The happiness of saving the life of the oldest daughter along with the happiness the younger daughter feels from knowing she saved the life of her older sister grossly out weighs any physical and/or psychological pain that could have been suffered while in operation. This vast amount of happiness alone, according to Act Utilitarianism, makes the action right.
             When looking at Rule Utilitarianism, where one observes the action as a rule or as a normality and the happiness that could be produced, it is more unclear if the action was moral or not because the conseq...