Utilitarianism and virtue ethics both provide aid to making moral decisions, but the two are not perfect. Whilst utilitarianism focuses more on the consequences of our actions, virtue ethics focuses on the character of the person. In this essay, I will elaborate more on the core concepts of both utilitarianism and virtue ethics. Then, I will introduce a scenario that will be used to compare the two ethical frameworks side by side based on their suggestion. Finally, I will argue that between virtue ethics and utilitarianism, they each could provide a morally preferable answer, depending on the situation. Utilitarianism, also called by John Stuart Mill the “Greatest Happiness Principle” (Mill, p.77), states that “actions are right in proportion …show more content…
The war is progressively getting more heated to the point that soon there will need to be a draft for recruits and negotiations for peace will be futile. After intense discussions, the government of Country A has decided that continuing the war will cause massive casualties that they cannot afford, but the only way to end the war would be through a show of force against Country B. As it turns out, Country A has a bomb that is powerful enough to level a city, the right amount of physical force needed. In order for the bomb to end the war, it would have to be used on a populated city in Country B, however; that would mean that thousands of innocent people would die. Country A now has the choice of either unleashing the bomb to end the war and prevent the massive amount of casualties to win the war or not use it at all and continue the …show more content…
However, under the circumstances of the scenario, both of the actions taken are not moral, as they both have a flaw in their reasoning that puts to question each actions’ morality. For the utilitarian response, ending the war will no doubt provide great happiness for Country A, but it would also make an incredible amount of unhappiness for Country B. Granted, the choice of bombing the capital would be morally better than doing nothing, however; if the amount of unhappiness from Country B is greater than the amount of happiness gained from Country A, using the bomb is still immoral under utilitarianism. Subsequently, virtue ethics would emphasize diplomacy in the scenario. And yet, if the war continues anyway, being courageous would provide the same result as being fearful, therefore it would be immoral to do an act with a cowardly consequence, even if the virtue behind it is morally excellent. Hence, both of these actions are immoral in some way, meaning that the best choice would have to be the choice that is morally preferable in accordance with the circumstances. Under these circumstances, bombing the city would be morally more preferable because a government is charged with protecting the interests of their country, and it can be seen that using the bomb is preferable because a virtuous agent could see the bomb as avoiding the evil of continued conflict and
World War II played host to some of the most gruesome and largest mass killings in history. From the start of the war in 1939 until the end of the war in 1945 there were three mass killings, by three big countries on those who they thought were lesser peoples. The rape of Nanking, which was carried out by the Japanese, resulted in the deaths of 150,000 to 200,000 Chinese civilians and POW. A more well-known event was of the Germans and the Holocaust. Hitler and the Nazi regime persecuted and killed over 500,000 Jews. This last country may come as a surprise, but there is no way that someone could leave them out of the conversation. With the dropping of the Atomic bombs the United States killed over 200,000, not including deaths by radiation, in the towns of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and ultimately placed the United States in the same group as the Japanese and the Germans. What are the alternatives other than dropping the two A-bombs and was it right? The United States and President Truman should have weighed their opting a little bit more before deciding to drop both atomic bombs on the Islands of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the case of dropping the atomic bombs the United States did not make the right decision. This essay will explain through logic reasoning and give detailed reasons as to why the United States did not make the right choice.
By looking further into this dilemma using various ethical standpoints allows for a broad understanding of principles and complexity in a specific situation with these paradigms. The focuses are three prominent ethical paradigms such as: teleological utilitarianism, deontological duty theories and virtue based ethics. Each of these three paradigms will be applied to the aforementioned dilemma, each will be evaluated and the best option will be revealed.
While this may have been true, there had been far more diplomatic alternatives which would have led to the same resolution. Many alternatives were discussed at the Interim Committee and were far more peaceful. These alternatives included the continued bombing and airstrikes-which would have ended the war six months later, allowing Japan to keep its emperor during a surrender, and even waiting for the Soviet Union to enter (3). Each of these options would have ended with less civilian casualties-as all of the above would have been used to force a surrender. Therefore, nuclear weapons were not the only, nor the best way to end the war.
Utilitarianism believes that whatever action produces the best consequences for the greater number is the one that is morally correct. To a Utilitarian, they would have viewed the U. S’s decision of as justifiable. The reason for this is because if the US had not dropped the two atomic bombs then that would have forced them to deploy hundreds of thousands of ground troops. As well, there would have been a horrifying amount of civilian devastation. However, utilitarians are consequentialists so they do believe in the overall consequences from the result of the actions. In this case, the results of the atomic bombs proved to be devastating and partially unethical. The ethical results of the atomic bomb were that it saved many more lives from being killed and in all ended the war quicker. The unethical sense of it was that it killed innocent civilians and it wrecked the cities that those civilians resided it. Also, another consequence that Utilitarians would deem is the long term effects of the radiation that a nuclear bomb caused. In all, I think it is right to say that a utilitarian would be neutral in their decision on the United States actions during
The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan were ethical decisions made by President Harry Truman and the United States government. By the time of the atom bomb was ready, the U.S. had been engaged in military conflict for over four years and lost over 400,000 soldiers. Truman claimed, "We would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved" (Winkler 18). The bomb was aimed at ending the war immediately and avoiding prolonged battle in the Pacific Theater and the inevitable invasion of Japan. President Truman hoped that by showing the Japanese the devastating weapon the U.S. possessed, that the war could be brought ...
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
Along with other noted philosophers, John Stuart Mill developed the nineteenth century philosophy known as Utilitarianism - the contention that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Bentham, in particular, is acknowledged as the philosophy’s founder, it was Mill who justified the axiom through reason. He maintained that because human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, they are not merely satisfied with physical pleasures; humans strive to achieve pleasures of the mind as well. Once man has ascended to this high intellectual level, he desires to stay there, never descending to the lower level of existence from which he began. In Chapter 2 of Utilitarianism, Mill contends that “pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends” (Mill, 7). Before addressing his argument, Mill defines the topic, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, ‘Utility’, or 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.
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.
However, when considering the alternate option of risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of allied troops, the former option may sound more appealing. This is the basic dilemma addressed in Paul Fussell’s, “Thank God for the Atom Bomb”. In his essay, Fussell strongly supports the use of the atomic bomb in its role in ending World War II. He acknowledges that while it was far from being ethically right, when the consequences of the alternate solutions are analyzed, it become apparent that dropping the atomic bomb was the lesser of the wrongs. Had the Allied forces pursued a land invasion of Japan, Fussell states that, “Planners of the invasion assumed that it would require a full year”, and, “one million American casualties was the expected price” (Fussell 723). This is an exact example of what Asimov attempts to prove in his essay in regard to making a decision between two seemingly wrong options. As Asimov states, simply because there is no perfect right answer, not all options and solutions should be discarded as uselessly wrong. Instead, Asimov would argue that the best way to end the war was the way that was the least
Utilitarianism is best implemented as a tool for leaders and decision makers. It can provide simple, fast solutions when applied to a variety of problems. When used as a supplement to analyze issues and reactions, it can provide a clearer answer. However, when used alone, there are flaws that arise in certain circumstances. Other forms of moral judgment should be consulted in some serious cases. Examples of utilitarian ethics show that it is best applied in times of difficulty, where the amount of suffering, loss, or damage must be kept at minimum.
1. Utilitarianism was described by J. Bentham as the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Utilitarianism is a holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the amount of happiness. It is therefore a form of consequentialism, which means that the moral value of an action is determined only by its outcome, so one can only weigh the morality of an action after thinking about all its potential consequences. Utilitarianism focuses more on the happiness of the greatest number whereas Aristotle focuses more on the happiness of the individual person Virtue ethics developed by Aristotle which is a moral theory that focuses on the development of virtuous character. In virtue ethics, character is the key to the moral life, for it is from a virtuous character that moral conduct and values naturally arise. Aristotle believes that the highest goal of humanity is the good life or Eudaimonia which means happiness and human flourishing. Developing virtues is the way to achieve a rich and satisfying life. According to him, virtues make
Three of the main moral theories in ethics are Kant’s moral theory, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. Each of these has its own benefits and pitfalls, most of which counter the other’s strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, I will be analyzing all of these differences while presenting my own version of utilitarianism that I believe to be the best and most promising theory, as well as applying it to a real world example.
All of the possible decisions end in loss of life, so to find the answer the bystander must use his morals to make the decision. First using the virtue ethics theory, the morality of the answer would be based in the character of the individual making the decision. Therefore, if the person making the decision is of good character, the decision regardless of the outcome is the correct answer. In comparison, a utilitarian approach would consider the consequences of all the options available, then chose the outcome which results in the most happiness of all the parties affected by the decision. The main difference in these two approaches being the way, when using virtue ethics, the outcome can change based on who is making the decision, versus the consistent outcome of the
This principle states that actions are right as long as they promote happiness and/or satisfaction. Utilitarianism focuses mainly on the principle of utility and consequences when evaluating an action. With the principle of utility, philosophers differentiated in their views of utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill believed that when deciding on an action, one must value which action will bring the better quality of utility rather than the quantity of utility. Whichever action allows for longer lasting and a higher value of utility is the action you should act on. Bentham believed that utilities should be compared against one another and to calculate which provides the most
Last Thursday March 30, I watched the movie Eye in the Sky. In the movie a bunch of different ethical issues were presented. The main issue or decision to make was whether or not the military would bomb a house full of terrorist. The problem in making this decision was that it would kill innocent civilians who were within range of the bomb. Another resolution presented to handle this situation would be to send ground troops to try and capture the terrorist. Personally, I disagree with this option of action. I disagree with this option because it has the most variables. A lot of different things could go wrong by trying to catch the terrorist with ground troops. The ground troops could make an error, the terrorist are armed and could kill Americans,