Utilitarianism represents a standard ethical theory, which determines right and wrong based on the results of selecting one action or policy over others. The theory operates outside an individual’s own interest to consider the concerns of others. The theory suggests that morally right action generates the most good. Furthermore, comprehending the right action normally takes place through the results. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill developed the theory.
They advise that people should maximize on the good and ensure that the highest quantity of it benefits the maximum number of people. The theory also promotes agent neutrality and objectivity. This works on the idea that everyone is an agent in promoting the maximization of the good. Therefore, one person cannot be concerned with the activities of their counterparts so long as they are also working for the maximization of the good.
The good aspect of the theory
The good thing about the utilitarianism theory relates to the notion that it is the simplest form of any applicable ethical system. The theory assists in easy decision making because people are guided by the consequences. Therefore, at individual level people can determine the morality of their actions through a simple strategy. People can calculate the goodness or the badness of their actions to determine the morality of their decisions.
Therefore, when the calculation results of the consequences presents more good than bad then the action or decision is taken as moral. The theory is also good in the sense that it is simple to apply in the daily decision making processes. People can evaluate their decisions to determine their goodness. For example, an individual considering spending money on entertainment can evaluate the decision for its goodness or badness. Therefore, when the negative consequences of spending money are higher, then the decision becomes immoral.
The bad aspect of the theory
The bad aspect of the theory also relates to the notion that it escalates the “end justifies the means” approach. The theory is more concerned with the goodness of the consequence. It is concerned with the consequence that maximizes the good. On the contrary, is not concerned about the means people use to achieve the good consequences.
Therefore, the theory can promote actions that present severe impacts in order to achieve good consequences. It is notable that the end can never justify the means. On the contrary, the means validate themselves. Therefore, the means used to implement actions that generate good consequences must be judged objectively using consistent standard of ethics.
How to improve the theory
The aspect of the theory that requires improvement entails its proposal that good consequences generates pleasure for people. People should promote the good. However, the good entails several things that cannot diminish into pleasure. There are diverse decisions on actions and policies that promote the good at an individual and society level. An evaluation of such decisions to determine their goodness or badness might indicate that they are moral.
However, not all the good can give pleasure. Other things have intrinsic values that might not lead to pleasure. Therefore, assuming that the good must also give pleasure might be misleading. Improving the aspect of pleasure connotation in the theory is crucial to ensuring that people can appreciate other components of decision outcomes that present the good but fails to give pleasure.
According to a theory of utilitarianism developed by John Stuart Mill, the actions of people are categorized as good or bad based on their consequences on the person and society.
An individual will always decide to take an action that will give him maximum happiness in terms of the benefits he will derive from the action.
His/her main objective in making the choice is the maximum exploitation of the available chances to get the best possible pleasure he/she can get from the specific action.
This may be done with the interest of the society at heart where, the person wants to improve the well being of everyone else in the community (Bentham, 1987).
An example is someone who takes the initiative to build a public utility like a road, church or school. The project is exclusively undertaken for the benefit of every child who is born in that society regardless of the time of birth or place of bath, so long as he/she can access the school.
The benefit in this case is unlimited to everyone but the efforts where from someone who took the decision alone.
In the case of marijuana legalization; this theory may consider it as wrong, due to the challenges and bad consequences that it may bring to society like increasing insanity among most users and destroying families.
In the egoism perspective, the individual’s actions are always decided based on personal interest in the subject matter. As a result, the person will only make a choice depending on how much he/she will benefit from the action without caring for the interest of the other people.
In this case, the self interest of a single individual may be pursued even at the expense of the society. From this perspective, the legalization of Marijuana smoking is justified as the society does not matter (Bentham, 1987).
On the other hand, the use of natural law theory advocates for the taking of action by someone based on his natural human reasoning. The decision on a certain aspect in life will be taken based in the logic behind the action, which is assumed to be the natural course of action by the person.
In this case, the individual makes his choices depending on what he/she thinks is best for him, the concept considers the freedom of the person to choose so long as she/he has achieved the age of majority.
According to this theory, an adult person is assumed to be capable of reasoning and considering all the positive and negative aspects of an action before making his choice.
The ethical theory that best represents my opinion is the application of natural law. From this perspective, we look at the benefits of the subject in question; legalizing marijuana use.
It should never be legalized because logically, if we consider the disadvantages of its use to the individual and the society. There are many disadvantages based on the consequences that may come with its use such as the influence it may have on the youths in schools and at home.
The society should not risk allowing individuals to have a few hours of being high, which will badly influence the whole society whether directly or indirectly for a long time. I think it is better if marijuana is not legalized (Virtue, 2006).
References
Bentham, J. (1987). Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mill, S. J. (2002). Utilitarianism. Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company Inc.
Virtue, D. (2006). Divine Magic. London. Hay House Inc.
Ethics and morality are significant factors in society. In addition, ethical growth is a foundation of society. This essay gives a description of the differences in how ethical contractarianism, utilitarianism, virtue, and deontological ethics theories address ethics and morality.
Differences in Ethics Theories
The first attempt of determining the difference between ethical contractarianism, utilitarianism, virtue, and deontological ethics theories pioneers with presenting their definitions. Boylan (2009) describes virtue theory as a defining factor of success that represents a “good individual”. Utilitarianism theory entails ethically accepted actions. This is when these actions lead to complete usefulness for a group of people contrary to any other option (Boylan, 2009).
Ethical contractarianism entails theories that establish moral values and political options (Boylan, 2009). They rely on collective connections that entail perfect circumstances, for example, knowledge deficiency or hesitation. Deontological ethics entail the connection found in the responsibility and morals of individuals (Boylan, 2009).
These theories characterize the morality of individuals. This includes how they struggle to achieve success and reasonable benefits. Conversely, they reveal differences between the subject of ethics and morality. For example, virtue theory represents the personality of an individual in search of success in life (Boylan, 2009). It is evident that success is an intricate factor in life. This is, especially, when making the right decisions in an occasion. Utilitarianism focuses on principles and morals. This is by harmonizing the good outcomes on top of the bad. This theory indicates that human actions should lead to complete usefulness for the majority (Boylan, 2009).
On the other hand, the ethical contractarianism entails people coming up with accepted alternatives based on supposed shared contacts. Finally, deontological ethics entail individuals’ commitment to acknowledging moral responsibility. This gives an explanation of individuals who work hard to achieve value in their lives and in the lives of their friends.
Conclusion
In conclusion, ethical growth is a fundamental part of every society. The relationship and variation in the three theories are evident in the description. Ultimately, my personal experience focuses on how the theory of utilitarianism distinguishes ethics and morality.
Reference
Boylan, M. (2009). Basic ethics: Basic ethics in action. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
The vaccination case in ethics has been a matter of heated discussion recently because many people refuse to get a vaccine for themselves or their children. Giubilini et al. (2018) believe that the primary reason why people reject this form of medical treatment is their skepticism regarding the efficacy or safety of various vaccines. However, vaccination is associated not only with personal purposes but also with collective responsibility deriving from herd immunity. It can only be achieved when a sufficient number of people in a particular population is immune, meaning that high refusal rates may compromise herd immunity and lead to dangerous consequences (Giubilini et al., 2018). The utilitarian approach suggests that the moral value of an action depends on its utility, meaning that people’s moral obligations are based on utility maximization (Giubilini et al., 2018). Thus, utilitarianism justifies vaccination from the ethical viewpoint because of the contribution that herd immunity makes to the collective good.
Such an approach may be problematic for parents since they also have a moral obligation to act according to the best interests of their child. Sometimes vaccinating children may not correlate with those interests, which is why parents may choose not to vaccinate their child. For instance, parents may decide not to vaccinate their healthy child against some diseases which are not dangerous for them to avoid the vaccine’s side effects and the corresponding risks (Giubilini et al., 2018). That decision can significantly affect other people since it disrupts herd immunity, and parents may be held morally responsible and accountable in case of an infectious outbreak. Parents may not even consider the risks of their child getting that particular disease if they want to prevent adverse reactions of the child’s organism to the vaccine. Thus, parents will adhere to the moral obligations they deem appropriate for their children’s best interests.
Reference
Giubilini, A., Douglas, T., & Savulescu, J. (2018). The moral obligation to be vaccinated: Utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 21(4), 547-560. Web.
Characterized as a teleological theory, utilitarianism is used to test the morality of an action based on its consequences, but not its motives. This theory is premised on the principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. The rightness of an action is therefore justified if it results into maximizing human welfare (Singer 325–337). Utilitarianism is composed of two broad features, i.e., act-utilitarianism and hedonistic utilitarianism.
These features were created because of research studies done by Jeremy Bentham. Act-utilitarianism involves ascertaining the morality or immorality of each action by tallying the consequences, one after the other. On the other hand, if our concern in determining the morality of our actions relies exclusively on pain and pleasure as our consequences, then the theory is known as hedonistic utilitarianism (Regan 202– 210).
According to Singer, the link between vegetarianism and utilitarianism is enshrined in the principle of equality of interests. Within this principle, it is presupposed that all beings, irrespective of their species, are supposed to receive equal consideration in the event that they are subjected to the same action. Since nonhuman animals have moral standing and can experience pain and pleasure like human beings, it is against the principle of equality of interests to feed on them (Singer 325–337).
The equality being considered in this case is of a morality nature and the abilities of the entities are inconsequential. For instance, equal consideration of interests entails allowing pigs the freedom to roam around in dirt as you will fulfil your children’s interest in education. The two cases do not amount to equal treatment but they amount to equal consideration of interests (Pollan).
Pollan argues that human beings have been eating meat since time immemorial and this habit characterize their evolutionary heritage. The identity of human beings as expressed through biological features such as dental design and digestion structure has largely been configured for eating meat (Pollan).
Eating eggs and meat of domesticated animals is the only way through which these animals are able to pay back for the hospitality they receive from human beings. Moreover, on this point, Pollan differs with animal rightists who regard domestication as a form of enslavement, rather than a mutual relationship between human beings and animals.
In his opinion, the alliance between humankind and nonhuman animals was first formed based on Darwinian trial and error for the sake of mutual survival (Pollan). In describing the dynamics that led to this relationship Pollan says, “Humans provided the animals with food and protection, in exchange for which the animals provided the humans their milk and eggs and–yes–their flesh” (Pollan).
Pollan’s support for domestication excludes cruelty of humans against animals. He emphasises that farming animals should be done in such a manner that uphold consideration for the animals. He condemns the treatment of animals as “production units,” whose only importance lies in their economic viability (Pollan). Pollan gives Polyface Farm as an example where industrial animal farming is conducted under conditions that are humane.
On this farm, chicken, sheep, cattle, turkeys, pigs, and rabbits coexist in a symbiotic relationship that gives them freedom to enjoy life in a less-controlled environment. This is very different from other American industrial farms where cruel practices such as tail docking, beak clipping, and sow crates are the order of the day. In an effort to paint a picture of the situation, Pollan says, “the American industrial animal farm offers a nightmarish glimpse of what capitalism can look like in the absence of moral or regulatory constraint” (Pollan).
Human beings are omnivorous and therefore their survival does not entirely depend on meat, they can choose to be vegetarians. On the other hand, carnivorous animals are limited to eating meat for their survival. Based on these observations, human beings do not have any moral justification to feed on animals simply because animals kill each other for survival.
Pollan’s argument that we are entitled to eat meat because of our evolutionary heritage is ill advised. We are firmly in the 21st century and there are so many opportunities in food crop farming that we can utilise for the betterment of the welfare of human beings and animals. The days when people survived as nomadic pastoralists, hunters, and gatherers are long gone. Equality through consideration of interests of animals and human beings is more feasible today because of the technological advances.
The utilitarian argument for vegetarianism is convincing because it is backed with comprehensive hypotheses. The arguments offer sufficient reasons why there should be equality in the consideration of interests that concerns animals and human beings (Regan 202– 210).
This equality of considerations restrains humans from using nonhuman animals for their own selfish ends. Acknowledging that animals and human beings are all capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, it becomes apparent that both entities are morally significant. Therefore, in the interest of maximizing happiness for both parties, human beings are supposed to be vegetarians and animals are supposed to enjoy their freedom as animals (Singer 325–337).
Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. “An Animal’s Place.” The New York Times Magazine 10 November. 2002
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights, Revised ed., Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004. Print.
Singer, Peter. “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9. 4 (1980): 325–337. Print.
Utilitarianism is a concept of morality that promotes actions that bring pleasure or happiness and opposes deeds that cause harm or unhappiness. Rachels and Rachels (2015) present a detailed discussion of this theory in chapter eight of their book, “The Elements of Moral Philosophy”. The chapter is entitled “The Debate Over Utilitarianism” (Rachels & Rachels, 2015, p. 111). The authors commence their arguments by highlighting three premises that summarize utilitarianism. First, an action’s morality relies solely on its consequences, and nothing else matters. Second, these repercussions only matter when they entail lesser or greater happiness for people. Third, in the evaluation of consequences, each person’s happiness receives “equal consideration” (Rachels & Rachels, 2015, p. 111). While the writers offer objections to utilitarianism, they conclude that the concept has more benefits to society compared to the use of common sense in terms of morality.
The authors outline two major objections to the theory of utilitarianism. First, they reject the idea that an action should be solely dependent on whether its consequences bring happiness (Rachels & Rachels, 2015, p. 113). For instance, the writers refer to an example of a peeping Tom spying on a lady through her bedroom window and secretly taking pictures of her undressed (Rachels & Rachels, 2015, p. 113). In such as situation, the only outcome of Tom’s action appears to bring him more happiness. According to Utilitarianism, Tom’s action can be justified because it is pleasurable to him. Second, Rachels and Rachels (2015) oppose the proposition that individuals should be equally concerned for everyone. The authors state that this utilitarian principle places too much demand on people and disrupts their relationships (Rachels & Rachels, 2015, p. 116). Even if the premises provided by Rachels and Rachels (2015) are true, they do not provide enough support for the conclusion because an action’s outcomes are not confined to only bringing happiness or unhappiness. Moreover, morality should be a product of both utilitarianism and the use of common sense.
On closer inspection, the claim that people should not be equally concerned for everyone is false because it promotes self-centeredness. In a world where millions of people facing life-threatening problems such as hunger, acts of terrorism, and contagious diseases, it would be misleading to urge individuals to only care for themselves and their significant others. Moreover, cancer patients are at a higher risk of suffering from emotional distress due to the increased procedural requirements and financial drain.
Reference
Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2015). The elements of moral philosophy (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Utilitarianism is a theory used to explain consequentialism. The consequentialism theory states that one has to determine what is “intrinsically valuable” in an action.
The good in the action is what is focused on and not what it leads to. In regards to this theory, founded by Jeremy Bentham (18th century), and further developed by his protégé, John Stuart Mill (19th century), the morality of an action is determinant with the benefit of hindsight. Bentham argues that the outcomes of an action are what determine whether it is good/bad or right/wrong. Bentham strongly believes that the “ends justify the means”. However, to this perception a question is posed, what is the end?
Both Bentham and Mill agree that there is one intrinsic good (pleasure according to Bentham or happiness according to Mill) and one intrinsic bad (pain) according to Bentham or misery/unhappiness according to Mill. However, their agreeing on principle ends there as Bentham states that terming or referring to an action as good, has to have arisen from receiving pleasure from that action, and is mostly experienced in the physical sense.
This is just an echo of Socrates’ sentiments in Plato’s “Protagoras”. Mill disagrees with this perception that it turns utilitarianism into a “pig philosophy” and argues that quality of the action matters a lot. This is in disregard of Bentham’s thought that pleasure is the same qualitatively and the only thing that matters or is vital is quantity.
Utilitarianism tends to assume that happiness or pleasures found in humanity are equal across all people, for example: that one person’s well-being is not more important than any other one person’s. Consequently, its quest is to creating “the greatest good for the greatest number”. The theory thrives and succeeds on the actions that are able to create a balance between happiness and misery and this is therefore taken as the morally correct action.
Strengths and weaknesses
Utilitarianism gets its strength from its perception of actions and their impact on an individual. The ‘expected’ result of a specific action is the principle of measure and not the actual result itself. Utilitarianism has other strengths which include: impartiality- the theory asserts that everyone is equal and their happiness counts equally, it does not allow room for egoism and provides insight into Bentham’s notion. The theory also justifies most of our moral conventions. It is flexible, and offers for a larger moral community.
This theory falls short along the way, as questions come up to try and find an answer to the issue on morality. According to the theory of utilitarianism, if the morality of an action depends on its results, how do we know when the “results” are done? How can we thus know the answer? This ends up being a weakness in the whole theory and perception of utilitarians.
It could be simply explained that “expected” result of a particular action is the criteria, and not the “actual” result, but the followers of this theory are not in agreement with this. For that reason, this brings out a weakness where its own believers do not agree with it fully. It does not answer the question on morality, and as it is known, morality is a very vital aspect of the society and an individual.
A notable weakness of this theory is its assumption that the happiness or pleasure of each human being is equal to every other individual’s. Utilitarianism does not really address the issue of morality and what determines actions as good or bad. The ease at which Kantianism opposed Utilitarianism thinking in ethics and morality issues shows a huge weakness and lack of faith in this theory. Both this two theories form the two major “rules-based” approaches to ethical theory in the modern era.
In spite of this, Kant emphasizes on the form of an individual’s ethical reasoning, and argues that it must follow a certain rationality to ensure its rightness. On the other hand, according to utilitarians, the measure of the rightness or wrongness of an action could only be determined by the consequences of the action (greatest good for greatest number).
This greatly shows where the Utilitarianism theory falls short of adequately addressing ethics and morality within an individual. The theory leaves the determining of good or bad to the majority and the outcome of an action. Therefore the individual has no control of reasoning out what is good or bad.
Bentham/Mill debate: what/why
The theory of utilitarianism founded by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by his protégé, John Stuart Mill comes across as the morality of an action is determinant with the benefit of hindsight and that reaction to an action determines whether it is good/bad or right/wrong. Although they both agree on the contextual basis of it, they have come out in disagreement on principle of what really is utilitarianism.
According to Bentham, the ends justify the means. On the other hand, Mill disagrees with Bentham and terms his philosophy on utilitarianism as a “pig philosophy”, according to him he prefers a state where an individual is “better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied”. His argument on this matter is driven by the fact that the level and intensity of happiness (referred to as pleasure by Bentham) is wholly driven by quality.
A disagreement occurs in this as Bentham is utterly convinced that what matters to an individual’s pleasure is only quantity and these pleasures are the same qualitatively in all individuals. The degree of measuring extent of pain or pleasure, happiness or misery and so forth is still indefinite and Bentham’s answer to this whether plausible or not does not shed any more light to the issue.
The disagreement between the two proponents of this theory leaves a question in our minds, is utilitarianism even practically feasible? Does the amount of deliberation on its impact, the problem of egoism and self-sacrifice and so forth answer the question on morality?
How then do we know that “happiness” or “pleasure” is the ultimate good? Mill tries to give insight to this by attesting that when an individual is asked what he/she wants in/out of life, it constantly comes down to happiness/pleasure, for that reason since every individual says that is what they want then they ought to get exactly that.
This puts into disrepute Bentham’s notion that happiness/pleasure is equal across all human beings and that the outcome of the action determines whether it is good/bad or right/wrong. Mill’s position on the theory of utilitarianism comes more superior to Bentham’s as he provides more explanation on what the intrinsic good is and morality within an individual.
Gene Hackman’s challenge: response
Is it justifiable killing one person to save others from suffering from cancer/find a cure?
Gene Hackman’s challenge on whether killing one person to save others from suffering from cancer and find a cure for them plays with what is right and what is bad. Bentham’s assertion that the outcome determines the right of deciding good or bad can be used to try and justify this. It is a question that tries to find a balance between ethics and morality within an individual, in the society.
Killing is out rightly wrong within the society and is not morally accepted. But the question is, does saving the lives of many justify sacrificing the life of one? Kant tries to offer insight into this debate by saying that the actions of an individual should be left to the individual’s own reasoning. Utilitarianism argues that the “ends justify the means”. But is it right?
The question of taking another person’s life is not justifiable in any way or form even if it is to save others. Laws have been put in place to put a check on the taking of life (killing), but there are instances where it is acceptable but still under very cautious circumstances. Hackman is faced with a question on his professionalism. Do professionalism and the oath sworn to uphold the ethical conduct of an individual have a play in reasoning and determining what is good or bad?
This leaves us asking ourselves whether the good of the many gives an individual the right to make choices on behalf of the group. In my opinion killing one to save many is not justifiable and goes against ethical and morality aspect in the society. But yet again all this is left to the reasoning of the individual to decide what is good and what is bad.
Many people argue that saving the lives of many innocent people justifies the act of taking life, but yet again the life being taken is innocent and they have a choice of whether to give into the cause or hold onto their life.
The choice of taking a life should not be given to someone to decide for an individual but rather to the individual it belongs to. In this way the good and feeling of pleasure is obtained by an individual as he/she has been left to reason on the impact of their worth to the society. Consequentialism tries to justify the taking of life but Kantianism argues against this and puts the decision solely in the hands of an individual.
Act-utilitarian believes that whenever a decision making process is in progress, an individual should and must take the action that creates the utmost net utility (Barrow 25). According to this view, the principle of utility is angled on the good results of an action in comparison to other alternative deeds. On the other hand, the rule-utilitarian is driven by the moral regulations associated with an action. Rule-utilitarianism has two parts (Mill 33). The first component states that an action can only be morality justifiable if it is conventional to a moral code (Markel 25). The second part states that a moral rule is only justifiable if its integration into the moral code would result in the highest utility (Sher 41). Thus, the rule-utilitarianism suggests that moral rules should be the basis for judging the morality of any action (Lazari-Radek and Singer 51). Therefore, an act-utilitarian directly applies the utility principles in evaluation the actions of an individual while the rule-utilitarian is more interested in how these actions are aligned to moral code that produces the most utility (Patrick and Werkhoven 18).
Decision Process
Applying Act-Utilitarianism
As an act-utilitarian, the decision process will examine the line of action that is likely to generate the greatest good. Although the two patients, genetics researcher and unsuccessfully, deserve similar treatment on equality ground, it is important to examine end results of giving the trial drug. On the basis of the act-utilitarianism, as an oncologist, I would give the trial drug to the genetics researcher since her recovery would benefit many people under the Malaria research. In fact, this action would be a service to the global humanity. I would not give the unsuccessful musician the trial drug because the outcome of this action would only benefit the dependent uncle. Therefore, the greatest good (utility) would be realized if the genetic researcher is given the first priority. Saving lives of a million plus people through the Malaria research cannot be compared to taking care of an uncle and supporting charities.
Applying Rule-Utilitarianism
As a rule-utilitarian, an action must conform to a moral code. At the same time, the action can only be justified when its alignment to the moral code produces the greatest utility. In applying the rule-utilitarianism, as an oncology, I would give the unsuccessful musician the first priority for the trial drug. This action is informed by the fact that the musician has shown signs of recovery as compared to the researcher, whose fate is unknown. It would be morally diluting to prefer the unknown for the known since the full recovery of the musician would be a breakthrough in the trial of the drug. The potential of this break-through goes beyond recovery of the musician to millions suffering from the same condition. My training as a doctor, with regards to a rule-utilitarianism, demands that I give the first priority to a patient showing the sign of recovery as a moral code of practicing medicine. Apparently, this action is align to the doctors’ practicing code and is laden with a myriad of benefits to the field of cancer research. Therefore, my action would promote the doctors’ code while attracting the greatest potential breakthrough in the cancer research. A full recovery of the musician, who is already showing progress, would lead to the approval of the drug to the benefit of all cancer patients across the globe.
Works Cited
Barrow, Robin. Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement. 1st ed., Routledge, 2015.
Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna and Peter Singer. Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Mill, John. The Greatest Happiness Principle – Utilitarianism, on Liberty & the Subjection of Women: The Principle of the Greatest-Happiness: What is Utilitarianism (Proofs & Principles), Civil & Social Liberty, Liberty of Thought, Individuality & Individual Freedom, Utilitarian Feminism. Madison & Adams, 2017.
Patrick, Tom and Sander Werkhoven. Utilitarianism. CRC Press, 2017.
Sher, George, editor. Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory. Routledge, 2013.
Utilitarianism is a contemporary ethical ideology; that argues that the result and product of human behavior is happiness. The ideology holds that the discriminating aspect that is useful in distinguishing the rightness or wrongness of human conduct is pleasure or pain. According to one of its major supporters John Stuart; the basis of morals is the much an action promotes happiness, thus right. That which deprives others of happiness, is thus considered wrong. The proponents go further to argue that happiness is intended pleasure that is not accompanied by pain; and unhappiness is the lack of pleasure in the abundance of pain. The ideas of utilitarianism are based on experiences of what is sensible; avoiding carrying out of selfish intentions; and seeking the support of conscience and moral judgment that are all based on the results of experienced choices. Utilitarianism further seeks to reconcile the motive of benevolence with those of self and communal interest; as if each person was to pursue his own happiness then the end result would not be the happiness for all. The theory also accounts that happiness varies in amount and quality; and therefore depending on the levels of pleasure one is exposed to, the judgment of pleasure may vary. As a result; so as to arrive at a conclusion, some moral standards of right or wrong; pain and pleasure have to be disregarded despite their consequences (Mill 45-56).
The distinction between act and rule utilitarianism is that; in act utilitarianism the result and product of the single act at hand is what is considered. In this case if the single act is deemed to create happiness than harm; then the action is justifiable and will be executed. On the side of rule utilitarianism; the results and consequences that result from a rule of conduct; are put into consideration. In this case the immediate happiness is n not dominant; but the long-term consequences of the choice made is what is given consideration (Mill & Sher 32-71).
Giving the case at hand an act utilitarian analysis; the action and choice at hand that requires utilitarian thinking is the choice of which of the two patients should receive the kidney, which would mean that the other either loses his life; or does lose it after a given time. Considering the ages of the two patients; John would receive the kidney as opposed to the 70 year old man who has a shorter period to live; holding that they both are to live to their old age. The seventy year Paul; due to other illnesses is expected to live not more than five years if he receives the kidney; as opposed to John who is expected to live a normal long life. The choice of giving John the kidney; would also mean that he would get a second chance in reviewing his educational standing, and the negative behaviors of drinking at the expense of his academics.
This is the assumption in this case because he must have learnt from the accident. The choice of performing dialysis on John; would see him through a few years as compared to the aged patient who is expected to live a maximum of five years if he receives the kidney; and a year if he receives dialysis therapy. This leaves only the option of giving the kidney to the patient who would live a longer normal life; as opposed to the aged patient who would still live a short period of time. The fact that tissue and blood types of the two patients are rare; would drive the choice to giving John the kidney as his family is capable of paying the costs for the transplant; as opposed to giving it to the aged patient who will not pay for the costs and still will not have enough time to benefit from the transplant. This choice will be made regardless of the fact that he will not pay for it as it is morally considerable (Mill & Sher 32-71).
Taking a utilitarian view of the case; would mean that consideration is given to the long-term impact of the choice made on who receives the kidney based on utilitarian rules. Considering that John is a drunkard who drove himself to the accident that led to the rapture of his kidney; the choice of giving him the kidney would be avoided based on the fact that the kidney would not be helpful if he continues drinking. In this case he would not live long enough and would not succeed academically; as it is evident that the short time he spends in academics proves that he is more likely to become a failure in the long run. If this is to happen; then he would live not to benefit the society like the aged Janitor has; and is still doing. The choice of exposing Paul to the dialysis therapy; would mean that the activities that he does to the community would last only a year; and possibly less due to the fact that his ability would decrease continuously. This would mean that the happiness of the public he addresses would have been sacrificed for the benefit of John; who does not seem to be of any societal benefit. In this case it is also important to account that the utilitarian rules of the hospital will dictate the choice as the hospital requires that hospital costs have to be met; so as to have therapies administered. In this case this rule is meant to protect the future capability of the hospital; which would mean the provision of healthcare in the future. As a result John will receive the kidney as he is capable of paying the costs (Mill 45-56).
However the conclusions arrived at in utilitarian thinking; are not free from grey areas that are not addressed by the concerns of morality and rationality of the choices made. Therefore presented are a few conclusions that may be arrived at with regard to given standards while disregarding others.
Work cited
Mill, John. “Utilitarianism”. Mobile reference Publication. (2008): 45-56
Utilitarianism, in whatever form and context, is the belief that the rightness or goodness of an action, rule or principle should be holistically judged based on its assumed ramifications.
For utilitarians, an action, rule, or principle that is good must produce pleasure, happiness, contentment or welfare to the concerned individuals, implying that they view what is right as that which optimizes one or more of these variables.
Utilitarianism is both a teleological and consequentialist ethical theory as it does not only presupposes that each action, principle or rule must be judged on whether its end result maximizes good, but also assumes that the ramification of an action, principle or rule is the only criterion to judge whether it is right or wrong (Waller, 2010).
The present paper purposes to present the viewpoints of two contemporary philosophers, namely Peter Singer and John Rawls, as regards utilitarianism.
Among contemporary philosophers, Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer stands out as a major advocate of preference utilitarianism.
Singer is ardently committed to the perspectives that ethics must reflect how life is lived, and that “…the consequences to be promoted are those which satisfy the wishes or preferences of the maximum numbers of beings who have preferences” (The Tablet, 2012, para. 2).
The philosopher, who refutes the claim that humans should be more valued than animals, argues that it is only morally and ethically right to aggravate the preferences (desires) of others if by so doing we provide capacity for others to satisfy their preferences.
Consequently, actions, rules, and principles must never be judged on their simple pain-and-pleasure consequences; rather, they must be judged on account of how they influence or affect the interests and preferences of all those concerned (The Tablet, 2012).
Philosopher John Rawls (1921-2001) was known for his persistent and often harsh criticism of utilitarianism, particularly when it comes to social and political justice.
One of the most popular views of Rawls was that “…each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all” (Yonehara, n.d., p. 13).
His second viewpoint revolved around the fact that social and economic inequalities in the world are progressed to gratify two situations:
they are to be attached to offices and positions open to all conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle)(Yonehara, n.d., p. 13).
Consequently, it is obvious that Rawls viewpoints go against some of the basic tenets of utilitarianism – presumably to maximize good to the greatest number of people and to suggest that people are responsible for all the outcomes of their choices (Waller, 2010).
Based on the above, John Rawls, in my view, provides the most convincing argument that deals with fair equality of opportunity for all and equal basic liberties for all, rather than promoting the consequences which satisfy the wishes or preferences of the majority as proposed by Peter Singer.
If Singer’s viewpoints are to be withheld, the claim that condemning minority groups to slavery will produce the greatest utility of happiness to the majority will hold true in line with utilitarianism.
However, we all know that slavery is wrong in spite of its outcomes because it tramples on basic liberties of those involved.
Consequently, we shouldn’t engage in slavery even if utilitarianism theory assumes that such engagement may produce pleasure, happiness, and contentment to the majority or the greatest number of people.
Reference List
The Tablet. (2012). Preference utilitarianism. Web.
Waller, B.N. (2010). Consider ethics: Theory, readings, and contemporary issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.