We often speak of “utilitarian” solutions in a negative manner, but it’s very probable that every human being will have to make a “utilitarian” decision at least once in their lifetime. Although I don’t agree with most “utilitarian” point of views, in some cases utilitarianism is a demanding moral side that brings benefit for the sake of the majority. In this case, I give you a matter of life and death. For example, a person has been in car accident and needs a heart transplant immediately in order to survive. There are no suitable donors available, but there is a brain-dead person in the emergency room that is being kept alive on a respirator, who probably has only a few days to live, and who is a perfect donor. Without the …show more content…
By focusing on the overall happiness able to cause by this action, and disregarding self-interest and perhaps integrity, the consequences of this decision will definitely induce pleasure and satisfaction to a majority.
There is a maximum utility being made because, a life is being saved, and a useful end is given to the less fortunate one. Another benefit is the deprivation of pain as only one man is to die, and just one family has to suffer. “The Fundamental Principle of Morality is the Principle of Utility or Greatest Happiness Principle.” (Mill), this basically means picking the course of action that is more likely to produce the greatest good of the greatest number of people. “This is and has always been the fundamental principle of morality” (Mill). If you count the number of people who benefited from this “utilitarian” decision plus the amount of happiness or pleasure caused, it would definitely overcome the amount of pain caused plus the lives affected.
Despite the fact that many do not concord with most “utilitarian” decisions, there exists occasions in which you have to consider their standards and ideals. The case mentioned above is an example of how if I were given the opportunity to decide, would certainly consider this “utilitarian”
Utilitarianism is the most appropriate use in everyday life. Actions done by an individual are done with the well being of all involved. Even if the act is considered immoral the act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism justifies certain actions as morally right. It ultimately focuses on the maximization of everyone’s
From this point of view, it does not appear that risking the lives of the firefighters and the public to attempt to save one person is a valid moral decision. However, the utilitarian maintains the actions should produce the greatest overall utility, determined by weighing consequences, acts, rules, and practice (Hinman, 2013). The most common version of utilitarianism is always to perform the action that will maximize the greatest results or act utilitarianism (Hinman, 2013).
In this case, physician-assisted death is the action in question. Once foreseeable, outcomes are determined, utilitarians review the benefits and the consequences of a physician-assisted death for all the parties involved. Then, a course of action is selected that provides the most benefits and reduces the negative consequences. This approach is direct and logical.
Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.
To apply utilitarianism to this ethical controversy one has to evaluate which option would benefit society
Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.
Utilitarianism attempts to consider the interests of others. However, when focusing on happiness, we fail to consider aspects such as rights and justice (EMP 115). When taking into consideration someone who is wanting to perform a deliberate suicide, overall happiness should not be the only issue to consider. This does not seem plausible since, if happiness is the only factor, anyone could justify any case of Euthanasia on grounds that they were unhappy and the world would be a better place without them. Doctors would be able to justify assisted suicide, which could quickly lead down a slippery slope where anyone who wanted to end their life would be able to do so at any time. Utilitarianism considers the feelings of others, correlating with the minimum concept of morality, which states that we take all individuals involved, into account. However, this theory considers everyone’s happiness equally important, which would take away, the intimacy and bonding from those we have close relationships with, as their happiness is no more important than the stranger walking down the street (EMP 116). Utilitarianism poses a strong theory, however it fails to address moral issues based on reason, as their only consideration for moral issues is the overall happiness achieved.
A man ends up in a South American town in front of a group of 20 inhabitants who had protested against the government and were about to be killed as punishment and to serve as warning. Understanding that the man, Jim, had ended up in the town by accident, they decide to honor him as a visitor and give him the privilege of killing one of the Indians. As a result, the other 19 will be set free. The utilitarian response to this is that Jim should kill the one man. The utilitarian must again forget his integrity and act for the greater good. Although his best benefit may be to not kill one man, he must consider the complete picture; he is saving the lives of 19 people.
A Utilitarian standpoint weighs the hedons and dolors in a situation. Ultimately it says that the most ethical thing to do
It can be considered then, that yes, utilitarianism is demanding. This assignment will endeavour to define the statement “Is Utilitarianism too demanding?” it will also discuss the arguments presented by Geoffrey Scarre.
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same
John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is
I believe people should accept the use of the greatest happiness principle to find the
In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.
The utilitarian view takes this into account where the Natural Law does not take into consideration the long term effects. I believe that the utilitarian view on this issue is a more plausible and realistic viewpoint in today’s society.