Michael Sandel discussed the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and the cost benefit analysis. He gives the examples of the cost benefit analysis conducted by Ford in connection with promoting the safety of the Ford Pinto or not. Ford concluded that it would cost more to promote the safety than to pay back for injuries and losses which may occur in a case of the accident. In his calculations Ford assigned the monetary value on human life. Sandel discussed Ford’s decision in class and some of the students argues that it was unacceptable to put monetary value on a human life. Other students argued that in order to maximize the utility you should put some value, usually the dollar amount, even on human life. Sandel discussed are two main My main concern that the idea of the greatest good for greatest number. I personally believe that human life cannot not be converted into monetary values, due to the idea that our life is priceless. Ray Robins (2000) discussed the cost benefit analysis in the health care system and he wrote that cost benefit analysis “ ignores the non-financial costs of pain, suffering, and grief which are often associated with illness [and] is not based on an individual person 's valuations of benefits.”(p. 924) The problem is that “ a third party view is taken about people 's "worth" to the society in terms of their productive potential”(p.924) Even though we live in the society where money can play a huge role, especially in a political decisions, there should be values that cannot have a price tag. Another problem with the cost benefit analysis is usually conducted by wealthy social class. Robert H. Frank(2000) argued that "that using unweighted willingness to-pay measures virtually assures a mix of public programs that are slanted in favor of preferences of high-income persons." R. Frank discussed another problem " they give too much weight to current costs and benefits, too little weight to those that occur in the future, as a result it often generates misleading prescriptions.
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.
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
A great deal of people within a mass of different cultures contain talents and special abilities of all shapes and sizes. In many cases, the way people perform these specialized talents directly correlates with how they value their lives. Amanda Ripley, author of the article, “What is a Life Worth?”tackles the topic of defining whether a price or value can be placed on a person’s life. By using statistical data and anecdotal evidence from the attacks on 9/11, she touches on each side of the argument efficiently. Although she does mention that a value may be a necessity when granting compensation to loved ones of the victims of national disasters, I personally believe that this action is impossible. The value of each person’s individual talents and unique abilities forms an inability to place price tags on human life. These special gifts, although priceless as is, provide worth to extraneous areas of life as well. For example, my greatest talent in life is my ability to pitch a baseball. By pitching well, I contribute to winning many games for the teams I play on, and by winning games, my team brings joy to themselves and to the fans enjoying the game. Because a price tag cannot be placed on emotions, my ability to pitch, which brings joy or sadness to different people, is also impossible to be priced. Because the personal abilities of each and every person add to the productivity in a seemingly unending amount, it is improbable that a value can be placed on the life of a human
Throughout the essay, Mills speaks highly of utilitarianism as a way to construct a happier more stable society. “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” (Mill 137). The ideas of such political philosophers such as Mills and Bentham enticed the modern world at the time of their publication, including the people of the U.S. The concept of utilitarianism started shaping America many years ago, and it is important to realize its consequence in modern day
Does every citizen have the right to have access to basic health care in the wealthiest country of the world? The current healthcare system in America has many inequalities in the access, quality, and cost of healthcare among different economic groups of people. In addition, it would be more beneficial to give citizens access to preventative care that could avoid health issues by addressing them early on, while they are still manageable. Siegfried Karsten (1995), professor of economics at West Georgia College, brings up a valid argument in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology when he questions whether “society really can afford not to cover all people…..is it economically and politically rational to continue to have millions of people develop serious health problems, at great costs to society……because they are financially unable to obtain the necessary medical care when it does them the most good?” (p.138). The cost of healthcare in America is a deterrent to lower income groups who cannot afford insurance, or even if they have insurance, hesitate to seek treatment due to deductibles and copays.
... value ordering. Goldman says life does not hold value in itself; instead most individuals derive the meaning of life from their accomplishments and happiness to the point where individuals may even risk their health and lives to attain those. As established before about paternalism in a medical contest, it is only the patient’s true values that can be primary determinants of their futures.
Health care can benefit everyone and their different income values. Health care should be required and the risk of spending on insurance should be taken even if many Americans believe they do not need health insurance. There are always possibilities of emergencies occurring and in need of insurance for the high costs of medical care. I personally believe and argued my opinion that health care needs to be required for everyone. To conclude my argument, I have argued that there are more benefits to have healthcare insurance required and that everyone in America deserves a happy and healthy
Examining the case with the Utilitarian mindset, we consider the overall positivity of the action vs the positivity of the alternative. In this case, what is the measure
...ajority of total spending (Henderson).” Physicians have been accused of creating a greater demand, which push up costs. Physicians are able to increase the demand by referring patient to other specialist. Rising incomes affect the demand in an increasing manor on the macro level. This is the characteristic of a luxury good. Is medical care a luxury? The elasticity of the demand function becomes more inelastic when your income rises creating a moral hazard. I believe that higher premiums should be charged to the wealthy to cover these increased expenses. “As medical care spending continues to escalate, the search for alternatives to slow its growth has focused on the supply side of the market. Modifying provider behavior is seen as the only way to control run-away spending. By ignoring the demand side of the market, we may be foregoing one of the most powerful forces available for cost-control, individual self-interest (Henderson p.149).” The most important aspect we need to get control of is the patient factors, which include health status, demographics and economic status. Educating the general public has proven to be an effective way of battling the rising costs of medical care!
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
The principle of utility is based on the greatest amount of happiness an action results in to the largest quantity of people who are affected by the consequences (Mill 89). Mill believes people should sacrifice as much as they can from their own possible happiness so that more people may obtain equal happiness that is sufficient. In doing so, those who are aiding others are creating a society of ultimate happiness where everyone is content. Thus, Mill argues for quantity over quality to the extent where everyone has just enough contentment that they do not feel pain or deprivation. For example, according to the principle, if in the future there is an unbiased computerized system for selecting organ donors, those who are selected to donate their organs to two or more people are obligated to do so. In doing so, the single individual is saving the lives of a greater number of people, and thus creates more happiness than if he alone lived and the two or more people died.
Sandel then speaks about the philosophy of utilitarianism, by Jeremy Bentham. Bentham’s idea is that the right thing to do is to maximize the balance of pleasure over pain or happiness over suffering. He supported his idea stating every human has pleasure and pain, while liking pleasure and not pain. The overall summary of Bentham’s idea is “the greatest good for the greatest number”, believing you should make the best of the levels of happiness. To support Bentham’s theory by telling a real life story about the case of “The Queen versus Dudley and Stephens”. The story was about 4 men being stuck on a lifeboat with two cans of turnips. There was a captain (Dudley), a first mate (Stephans), a sailor (Brookes), and the last was a Richard Parcher, the cabin boy who was
An 'economic cost-benefit analysis' approach to reasoning sees actions favoured and chosen if the benefit outweighs the cost. Here, the benefits and costs are in the form of economic benefits and costs, such as, monetary loss or profit. One who is motivated by such an approach will deem a course of action preferable if doing so results in an economic profit. Conversely, actions will be avoided if they result in an economic loss (Kelman 1981).
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Placing monetary value on an individual’s life is measured not by the way an individual has lived, but rather the individual’s income; at least that is how society views life. Every individual values life from a different perspective. And while every human will find value in life, those values will not be the same as everybody else. Some people will value life as a privilege and believe life should be taken seriously while considering the consequences in every decision contemplated while others will live in the fast lane with an irresponsible mindset. Individuals also view life differently depending on the circumstances. However, no matter how an individual views life, it seems to be impossible to extract emotion out of any decision. Society, on the other hand, values life by placing a monetary value on a human life. Society also has no choice but to set emotion aside when setting that monetary value. The government will use that value to compensate a family who has just lost a love one. However, some families mistake the compensation for “replacing” the lost soul and become indignant. There are many alternatives when it comes to compensating the victim’s family. In most times, society always ends up placing a value on an individual based on his/her income. Furthermore, while society delivers compensation to families, society also believes in compensation for an individual’s pain and suffering. There are times society should place a monetary value on life, while having restrictions.