Powerful Essays
Utilitarianism is a consequential perspective, in that, a decision in based on the effects it ----will have on society and what it will generally lead to. Also, the utility or usefulness of an action is determined by the amount of happiness that will result. Therefore, no action in itself can be deemed wrong; consequence alone are the important matter. Using this principle, one should consider the possible results of each potential action.
One clear flaw of the utilitarian perspective is there that there seems to be a lack of the concept of justice. Their moral principles would justify doing experiments on a single man with no friends or family. The justification would still exist in a case in which the experiments would cause a man to die, yet benefits occurred because substantial medical knowledge was obtained. There also seems to be no intrinsic value placed upon human life, yet the value is placed upon the happiness of the greatest of people.
Utilitarianism follows one of two categories; act and rule. With Act Utilitarianism, all possible actions are considered and one must determine which action would yield the most happiness or benefits for the greatest number of people. However, with act utilitarianism, there really is no way of determining if the right choice of actions was carried out. Also, there is no clear way to be certain on what the results of the actions will be. For example, there is no way to be sure that a severely impaired infant will not recover enough to live a better life that what was predicted.
However, acting morally doesn’t mean acting omniscient. A reasonable effort must be made to get relevant data to predict the possible consequences of all actions involved.
Another form of utilitarianism would be rule utilitarianism. This moral standard suggest that an action is right if it follows a specific rule that has been structured and validated while keeping the principle of utility in mind. A rule utilitarian would not concern themselves with the utility of specific or individual cases, but would follow a set of particular rules. One would not have to go through the process of calculations involved in determining maximum utility, but a particular rule would...

... middle of paper ... Ross’ ethics.
Even in the case involving Alice Nuvo and her not wanting treatment my moral intuition came into play. Under most circumstances, my position is strictly to say that human life can never be allowed to pass if there is a reasonable means of preserving it. However, there can be no rules for me to follow because I find exceptions to this, and the case of Alice Nuvo would be such a case. I ruled that her autonomy surpasses any medical judgment. If she wants to be allowed to live out her life with her family and inevitably die, it should be her choice. Especially in a case such as this, I really have no way of reviewing my actions and seeing what rules I followed or what past cases I referred to. Once again, my moral intuition lead me to decide for her autonomy. However, moral intuition does not instantly occur when deciding on a case. There must be careful review of every aspect, action, and possible consequences before your moral intuition can decide upon anything. After reviewing my decision scenarios, and taking into account the beliefs of utilitarianism, Kant’s ethics, and Ross’ ethics, I. without a doubt, that I am a follower of Ross.
Get Access