There is one instance in this film where the woman from Red Cross experiences a moral dilemma. When she returns to the orphanage to gather the rest of the Tutsi children to bring them to safety at the hotel, she finds that the Hutu rebels had beat her there. She finds the rebels killing the children by slitting their throats. The Hutu rebels force her to watch. There is one little girl with her little sister on her back fearful as the rebels have a gun pointing at her. She looks the Red Cross lady in the eye and says “Don’t let them kill me. I promise I wont be Tutsi anymore.” The Red Cross lady faces an instance where she is to either risk her own life to save the girl or to let it happen as it is the little girls fate. Either action she chooses
Bernard Williams wrote A Critique of Utilitarianism in which he shows how Utilitarianism may require people to do wrong. He presents the readers with two examples of “cases in which, on utilitarian grounds, one would be forced to act in a way that violated one’s intuitive moral feelings” (224). The case of Jim is relatable to the stories of Hotel Rwanda. Jim is an honored visitor to a country and he comes across a captain with twenty Indian protestors who he is about to kill. The captain tells Jim that he can kill one Indian and the rest can be set free, otherwise the captain is going to kill all twenty Indians. The important point that Williams makes is that Utilitarianism cuts out the factor that Jim is responsible for what he does, not the actions of other people. Williams emphasizes the importance of integrity. Many of the characters in Hotel Rwanda are faced with this factor. Paul realizes the importance of integrity when he tells his wife and kids to go to the roof and jump because that is better than being killed by a machete. Utilitarianism does not consider that actions can be made based on what makes sense rather than happiness. Not every action people make are in the pursuit of happiness. People have other goals they are trying to pursue in life. Paul is acting in such ways to save innocent people from dying because that is what makes sense to him. Even when
Paul convinces him not to by saying it is bad for the hotel’s reputation and that the UN has it all under control. This is another example of how Paul’s acts are acts of Utilitarianism. By keeping the hotel open, he is promoting happiness amongst the Tutsi and Hutu refuges he is protecting. Since actions are right as they promote happiness, the action to keep the hotel running is
In conclusion Williams’s argument about Utilitarianism can be looked at in many different angles. Williams believes utilitarianism obstructs humans from the basic human moral of integrity. The word integrity means that you are living your life in way that you act in accordance with your commitments and moral code. If a system like utilitarianism tells you that integrity is not important and denies what is important to an individual has a serious problem in the eyes of Bernard Williams.
... Paul wanted to get out of the war. Maybe Paul died on the right day; he loves quiet, and he dies on possibly the quietest day of the whole war. Maybe he just wanted to end his misery. In any case, Paul cannot accept the philosophy of war and thus gives himself up for death.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
In his article, Unger argues for a principle called Pretty Demanding Dictate which claims that we ought to spend most of our income in order to alleviate the suffering around the world. In support of this principle, Unger comes up with two cases: Bob’s Bugatti case and Ray’s Big Request case. To briefly discuss how Unger’s argument is structured, Unger proposes that if we agree that Bob should ruin his expensive Bugatti in order to save a child, we are inclined to believe that Ray should donate most of his money to UNICEF because he can do more good with lesser cost than Bob’s case. Here, Unger also proposes the Reasonable Principle of Ethical Integrity, which argues that if you believe someone should perform a certain act of benevolence, then you should be able to carry out the same act under the same circumstance as well. This principle is used to persuade us if we believe Bob or Ray should perform an act of benevolence in their situation, we should also do so under the same circumstance. At the end of this reasoning, we are led to believe that we should sacrifice most of our money just as we believe Bob and Ray should do.
In a later chapter, Paul explains why he reacted so quickly. War has turned all the soldiers into "unthinking animals in order to give us the weapon of instinct." This primal instinct is one of survival; it is the only thing that matters during war. It allows the soldiers to remain calm in battle, it allows them to escape solitude, and aids them in survival. "As in a polar expedition, every expression of life must serve only the preservation of existence, and is absolutely focused on that;" Paul and the other soldiers do only what is necessary to ensure their own survival.
He realizes that he has to lose feeling to survive, “That I have looked far as the only possibility of existence after this annihilation of a human emotion” (194). Paul loses all feeling, which may be one of the main factors keeping him alive in battle, so that he does not allow himself to process the violence and horror to which he is exposed. Even in the short time where he thinks about all that he has lost, he is immediately overwhelmed with feelings and there is no time for this on the battlefront. Paul has no empathy for the enemy and kills without even thinking, “We have lost all feeling for one another.
Bernard Williams discusses multiple fine points against utilitarianism. His objections are clear and concise, but he fails to keep confidence in them. For all of the problems he sees in utilitarianism, he is not completely opposing it by any means. Williams enjoys the simple mindedness in making a utilitarian decision. By this he does not imply intellectual simplicity. Rather, utilitarians mix perfectly the technical complexity of processes of decision-making with the simple-mindedness of it all. This leads to Williams's final point against utilitarianism. Although utilitarianism can be seen as a great combination of complexity and simplicity, the complexity of serious issues (i.e. politics) is undermined and made sterile by the simplicity of utilitarian thoughts.
...ft who is actually honest. To Paul, the ultimate place in life is to be a part of the upper class. Paul had to try very hard, and be very dishonest, to convey a certain image so that he would be accepted as a part of that class. At this moment, since the best place to be is the upper class, and if one must be dishonest to achieve high social status, Paul wonders how there can be anyone in the world who is honest because everyone should be striving to be a part of the upper class. As far as Paul is concerned, his deceitful measures were an acceptable means for achieving his goal.
Throughout this paper I will argue between Mil (Utilitarianism) and Held (Care Ethics). Mil is a British Philosopher well known for his ethical and political work and Held is an American Feminist and Moral Philosopher. After reading this essay you will have a good view on what Utilitarianism and Care Ethics is and also what my concluding position is.
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is frequently define as “the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people.” Also reflected as “the greatest good with the least amount of pain.” Therefore, human beings, actions should be contingent upon the consequences. The end of all human conduct should be only happiness. Greater someone’s happiness overall generate others to have a greater happiness. So Utilitarian’s believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good thing such as pleasure and happiness in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things such as pain and unhappiness. They also refuse mora codes that consist of commands that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders. Utilitarian’s think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is its positive contribution to human beings.
Paul wanted to gain the love his mother more than anything. He chose to conform to the path of luck. While pursing this personal desire, he became overwhelmed with in it and this ultimately led to his demise. If he would have been able to control his desire it may have been able to save him from tragedy. When an individual chooses to conform to meet the ideals of another individual in order to achieve there own personal desire, they can not sacrifice everything for that persons ideals because it can often result in tragedy.
The first case is when he volunteered for a small charity in Haiti called Eye Care Haiti. Paul determined that he was going to use his time in Haiti to learn everything he could about illness and disease afflicting the poor there. Here he is putting others first by volunteering at a clinic to help poor people (when he could have easily got a paying job after college), and later figuring out that he wanted to learn ways to help the deprived areas. Next, he put others first by going back and forth to Haiti to continue to help a village named Cange, although he had just entered medical school at Harvard University. Even after being accepted into one of the most prestige’s universities in the world, Paul never lost sight of his desire to help others in the areas where he first began his
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
Utilitarianism is consequentialist ethical system that focuses on the results of actions, rather than the actions themselves. Utilitarian ethics, attributed to Jeremy Bentham, also argue that humans are naturally driven to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore, in utilitarian ethics, just actions are those that maximize happiness, utility, and minimize unhappiness. Utilitarian ethics also argue that happiness must be maximized for the greatest number of people, rather than focusing on the individual pursuit of pleasure. Utilitarianisms strengths lie in its societal applications, allowing decision making bodies that benefit large groups, rather than looking purely individualistically. It also offers a stronger justification if one accepts the base principle that happiness is universally better than unhappiness. One of the main difficulties in applying utilitarian ethics is the challenge of quantifying happiness. It is impossible to empirically measure happiness. Utilitarianism also opens itself to hypotheticals that yield unpleasant results. Under pure utilitarianism, if it would increase the safety, and therefore happiness, of a society to torture or kill innocents suspected of a crime, it would follow that such action was ethically just. Subsequent utilitarians have offered more nuanced versions of the hedonic calculus and ideas of rule utilitarianism that look at overall moral rules