Based on chapter 5 in the book Beyond Bumper Stickers Ethics, utilitarianism is the idea of utility or usefulness. “Utilitarianism says that acts are morally right when they succeed in (or are useful for) bringing about a desired result. The result that should be desired is happiness, because it alone is intrinsically good” (Wilkens, S, 1995, pp. 84). This can be interpreted that the death of one can bring happiness to multiple individuals. One organ donor can save up to 8 lives and also save or improve the lives of up to 50 people by donating tissues and eyes (New York Organ Donor Network, 2015). A quote to remember is, “The greatest happiness for the greatest number”. Meaning that the majority will receive greater happiness even if it requires
Non-Voluntary is where one ends the life of person who cannot choose for themselves. Furthermore Thiroux and Krasemann, (2012) argues that people who perform mercy killing is not violation of the value of life because in most cases the people killed are not aware, mercy killing can also be justified, by the virtue ethics (Confucians) theory as it suggest that people suffering from an illness would not be a living eudaimon life, so ending someone’s life can be ethically justified. Confucians build moral judgement based on intuition rather than the reflection of moral principles. The arguments for and against euthanasia and mercy killings are complex; as both sides of the debate question the notions of morality. Although this essay will argue against euthanasia, as the quality of life is an ethically essential concept to consider, regardless of the motive murder is
The dropping of the atomic bomb in Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was the end of WWII. However, there has been much conflict considering the use of the bomb. In this essay, I will discuss reasons from both sides of the argument and justify my opinion.
As a college student, I am always keeping myself updated with different new university policies because many policies are impacting my college life. Although many policies are impacting me in school, college tuition is the most important to me. The increase of college tuition at U.C and CSU will cause many problems for students. The school administration thinks that is the time to increase student tuition, but students will not benefit from the increase. Therefore, my paper will offer a utilitarian evaluation of the recent CSU and UC increase in tuition, it will show that said policy is unethical from a business and social standpoint.
I strongly agree with Aras look on the autonomy argument and that individuals should be able to determine the level of suffering for which they can endure and when the point comes to end ones life. Suffering is a complex thing that cannot be measured or determined by anyone but the individual himself or herself. Therefor I do not think that anyone is in a place to say that an individual should prolong their suffering when in the case of terminally ill patients will ultimately end in death. In terms of the utilitarian argument I agree that one needs to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness, but find issues with it similar to Rachels that will be discussed later. Where I disagree with Aras is in his analysis of the slippery slope argument and potential for abuse. I feel with the necessary safe guards put into place the slippery slope argument and abuse will be negligible. I do not agree that the arguments made for physician-assisted suicide can be made in any other case but terminally ill patients. For terminally ill patients the end result is going to be death whether it is in a few days, weeks, or months. With other illnesses, while life may be depreciated, death is not looming in the near future. The unnecessary suffering caused to terminally ill patients, isn’t going to go
While pointing out that it is much easier to ignore an appeal for money to help those you’ll never meet than to consign a child to death, Singer uses his utilitarian philosophy to deflect the argument, stating that “if the upshot of the American’s failure to donate the money is that one more kid dies… then it is, in some sense, just as bad as selling the kid to the organ peddlers.” This argument, however, can only be made while using false dilemmas. Singer also addresses a large criticism of his work, that one can’t decide moral issues by taking opinion polls. The argument to this reiterates how the audience would feel being in these situations. This argument is poor as it does not address how the entire article is based on how everyone feels about this particular subject. The point is never satisfactorily addressed elsewhere, making the counterargument
The divine command theory, utilitarianism, Kant’s duty defined morality, natural law theory, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics are the five types of ethical theories. The divine command theory states that what is morally right and wrong will be decided by God. Utilitarianism states that “Action “A” is morally right if and only if it produces the greatest amount of overall happiness. Kant’s duty defined morality states that what is important is acting for the sake of producing good consequences, no matter what the act is. Natural law theory states that people should focus on the good and avoid any evil. The last theory is Aristotle’s virtue ethics which states that we should move from the concern towards good action and to focus on the concern with good character. This paper argues that Aristotle’s virtue ethics is better than the other ethical theories.
As a child, most learn that sharing is caring. Giving something that is abundant to the individual to those who could benefit from it is a concept as old as civilization. Naturally, as humans, we seek to be happy and more often than not, make others happy. Thus the utilitarian view was created, but what does that mean? What exactly is happiness and how does one go about spreading happiness it to others? A man by the name of John Stuart Mill seems to be able to give us some answers to these questions.
nature are hedonistic, this means that people given the opportunity would avoid painful situations at all costs, while vigorously reaching out for pleasurable moments. An example of reasoning in act Utilitarianism can be found in the biomedical ethics book (Mapes&Gaize pg. 10). A severely ill infant who has zero chances of survival has contracted a deadly virus, the physician and parents now must make the decision to treat the virus with antibiotics or allow the infant to simply die. In this case it is clear that those involved would be best served by allowing the child to simply die, since the infant has nothing to gain and everything to lose from a painful prolonged life. The anguish and distress of the parents cannot be eliminated regardless
The decision as to whether it would be morally acceptable for the operation to take place, lies in the social construct of the surgeon and what influences her morals. Throughout the course of this essay I will identify theories on morality that will offer a framework as to how we think and identify which moral theories have a significant influence on the social construct of the surgeon which consequently will reveal her decision.
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.
There are a myriad number of situations which seem very difficult to resolve without employing utilitarian principles and a very good example is the widespread use of utilitarian principles in bioethics. The best example here would obviously be the famous case of the conjoined twins Mary and Jodie. The facts in front of the court indicated that Mary was the parasitic twin who shared a heart with Jodie. In fact, Jodie’s heart was the one sustaining the functions of the parasitic twin Mary. The parents were staunch Catholics who didn’t think separating the twins, which would result in the death of the parasitic twin Mary, was the right thing to do. Bentham’s and Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism would definitely suggest carrying out the operation and saving the twin that could be saved. One stance is to think that the reality which makes the doctors incapable of saving the
As per the reading suggested by the instructor about the philosophical idea of Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) given by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and the other concept which is given by Immanuel Kant in the critics of Utilitarianism theory which is called Deontological Ethics. The reading given made understand about all these two concept and their possible application in the policy or law making like the universal law.
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains
First element is happiness and second is consequentialism. Usually defined as maximizing total advantages and reducing suffering or the negatives. Most of the governments in the world follow this theory. Generally in democracy like India government consider this theory because they are elected by majority of the people and hence they strip to see after the benefits of the majority of the population. In utilitarianism everything useful to happiness is fine. It is based on principle of utility. The purpose of morality is to develop the society. In the consequentialism an action is morally rights or wrong depends perfectly on its consequence. Utilitarianism considers that everyone is pleasure, not single person. People who are displaced from their land get compensation but does that compensate the value of job, life health etc. Even they get land at same other place, will they get same kind of living environment, employment opportunity as before? Majority of the people get the benefits of electricity from large dams or nuclear power plants but at the cost of displacing inhabitants from their land. Fundamental problem theory with this theory is that it assumes everyone is tradable. The right of freedom of choice of some people is being violated for the benefits of the larger population. People who do not wanted to leave their land were forced to sacrifice their freedom of choice. The aim of the morality is to make the world a better region. Morality is about creating good consequence, not having good target. We should do whatever will bring the most advantage all of humanity. The aim of morality is to tell other people’s works in such a way as to create a better world. Utilitarianism is on consequences, not target. Utilitarianism is a morally demanding position for two reasons, First reason is it theory asks us to do the most to maximize utility not to do the minimum and second reason is to set aside