Utilitarianism vs. Cultural and Ethical Relativism
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.
In the Scenario I, a Utilitarian would view the inmate as having a higher sense of moral obligation. From a Utilitarian perspective, the inmate should have acted out of a general desire to do what is right for the benefit of all, not simply for his own happiness, even if it meant going against his religion. The Utilitarian would also view the prison official's behavior as moral. This is because one man endured the pain and suffering, but from that, 5,000 other people had much happier lives. Even if the inmate had eventually killed himself, a Utilitarian would still view the acts as moral.
In Scenario II, it is more difficult to discern exactly what an (Act) Utilitarian would say about the morality of the choices made since these choices bring pain in suffering to a greater number of people. The loss of three fetuses, that were not otherwise going to be aborted, would have a tremendous effect on many people. The mothers and their families would experience a great deal of pain and suffering over this loss. However, when weighed with the happiness brought to thousand of cured people, a Utilitarian would say the acts were moral. Since utilitarianism states that in any situation where there is a moral choice to make, the right thing to do is that which is likely to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism argues that, we need to consider how much overall happiness of the action could bring, considering everyone involved. For example, how will Brittany’s choice for euthanasia affect her husband, friend, and parents? In Craig’s case, how will his choice for euthanasia affect his wife, son, and daughter? In both of their cases, that devastation that they will die is already difficult for them, and their families. Craig’ wife and his two children were sad that he was making the decision to die before his illness consumed him. Her daughter speaks on how hard it was for her, and in a sense relieved, she was not present when her father took his own life. Brittany was a newlywed, it was extremely sad for her husband and brother in law to know she was taking her life beforehand. To make a choice an act-utilitarian would need to balance out the overall happiness compared to the suffering. Both Brittany and Craig will eventually die. If they both let their terminal illness progress they would inflict extreme suffering on themselves and their family as they witnessed their pain. In Craig’s case, his illness will get worst it will cause paralysis. His major concern was on how would he be able to let
Utilitarianism is when you determine rightness or wrongness of an action judged off the consequences. It’s a way to get the maximum number of happiness from the greatest amount of people, so if the majority of the people are content with the consequences then there’s no problem behind the action. The intentions you have behind an action determine whether you perform that action or not. Initially your intentions are to look at the greater “good” of the action and if that good outweighs the bad then you’ll probably initiate that action. There are two subcategories for utilitarianism; act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism is the belief that an action is morally right because it produces the greatest good or happiness for the majority of the people. Rule Utilitarianism is the belief that any action is morally right depending on the
‘’Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the focus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action and or policy over others (Cavalier, 1996)’’. It is a morally demanding position and asks one to do the
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
In utilitarianism the common goal is to create the most happiness for the most amount of people. Mills definition of the Greatest Happiness Principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (540) If this principle is the case then as a utilitarian your actions of good should promote the most happiness. This way of thinking can really produce some wrong answers and actions to moral questions. For example, say you and your family are starving and in need of food. The only possible way to get food would be to steal it. In general society finds it morally wrong to steal under any circumstances. But as utilitarian you have to ask, would my actions of stealing food promote the most happiness for the most people. You need to take into account the people you are making happy and the people you are hurting. On one hand, you would be promoting happiness for you and your and entire family, and on the other hand, you would be hurting the storeowner by stealing some of his revenue. Utilitarian ideas tell you that you should steal the food because your actions are promoting happiness and the absence of pain for the least amount of people. There are other examples I found when doing some research like doctors going against morals to save more sick people by letting one healthy person die
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
“Utilitarianism is the view that the supreme principle of morality is to act so as to produce as much happiness as possible, each person counting equally” (Mill, 114). By ‘happiness’, this includes anything that is pleasurable and free of pain. Simply put, utilitarianism is the theory that an action is right, as long as it produces the greatest good for the most number of people (Peetush). The central point to this theory is that one must consider every consequence before taking any action. There are two classical forms of utilitarianism; rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. “Rule utilitarianism is the idea that an act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative” (Pojman, 127). Take for instance, stopping at a red light. According to rule utilitarianism, stopping at a red light is an act required by a rule, in this case the law, which would also lead to greater utility for society because it prevents accidents from happening and having to wait in traffic, being late, etc. On the other hand, act utilitarianism assumes “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman, 126). Both rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism have been criticised in several different aspects. It has been said that “the act-utilitarianism rule, to do the act that maximizes utility, is too general for most purposes” (Pojman, 127). Alongside, “an often debated question in ethics is whether rule utilitarianism is a consistent version of utilitarianism” (Pojman, 127). The purpose of this paper will be to demonstrate how the arguments supporting utilitarianism are no...
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
A utilitarian approach to moral reasoning is also one where different options are weighed, although utilitarians are interested in minimising harm and maximising benefit. Importantly, utilitarians hold a universal perspective when reasoning, where they consider the impact upon all those who may be affected, who have interests of their own (Grace & Cohen 2013: 14-15).
Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."(Mill) Utilitarian’s choices and decisions are based on the results of having the maximum number of happiness to the minimal number of pain. For instance, with this case study, Utilitarianism would be pro for the shooting of the intruder. The reasoning behind this is if the intruder were to open fire on the family, there would be several casualties. Whereas if you were to shoot the intruder there would only be one casualty. This would maximize the happiness with having more lives saved, rather than the pain with more lives lost. With saving more lives you are going with the majority which is the amount of people being saved for the one life that is loss. Also Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. Meaning in this example that watching your family die would be extremely painful for yourself and the loved ones going through the tragedy. But saving your family would create happiness or “pleasure” because they are now safe and not in any type of danger. The pleasure of saving your family greatly outweighs the pain that would come from watching your family die. Having to mourn all the
Utilitarianism can be defined as: the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians seem to believe that humans only have two desires, or motivations: happiness and pain. They want as much happiness as possible and the least amount of pain as any other action. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that whether it is right, depends solely on its consequences.
Utilitarianism is the view of considering everyone’s benefit as equally important versus only considering my own. For any action, the morally correct thing to do is cause the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure or benefit for the greatest number possible; while at the same time causing the least amount of pain or unhappiness for the smallest number possible.
There are different countries and cultures in the world, and as being claimed by cultural relativists, there is no such thing as “objective truth in morality” (Rachels, 2012). Cultural relativists are the people who believe in the Cultural Ethical Relativism, which declares that different cultures value different thing so common ethical truth does not exist. However, philosopher James Rachels argues against this theory due to its lack of invalidity and soundness. He introduced his Geographical Differences Argument to point out several mistakes in the CER theory. Cultural Ethical Relativism is not totally wrong because it guarantees people not to judge others’ cultures; but, Rachels’ viewpoints make a stronger argument that this theory should not be taken so far even though he does not reject it eventually.
In explaining Cultural Relativism, it is useful to compare and contrast it with Ethical Relativism. Cultural Relativism is a theory about morality focused on the concept that matters of custom and ethics are not universal in nature but rather are culture specific. Each culture evolves its own unique moral code, separate and apart from any other. Ethical Relativism is also a theory of morality with a view of ethics similarly engaged in understanding how morality comes to be culturally defined. However, the formulation is quite different in that from a wide range of human habits, individual opinions drive the culture toward distinguishing normal “good” habits from abnormal “bad” habits. The takeaway is that both theories share the guiding principle that morality is bounded by culture or society.
Utilitarianism is defined to be “the view that right actions are those that result in the most beneficial balance of good over bad consequences for everyone involved” (Vaughn 64). In other words, for a utilitarian,