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
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 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.
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 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.
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
In Williams's first example he discusses the situation of a man. George is having a difficult time finding a job after completing his Ph.D. in chemistry. He is offered a job to work on chemical and biological warfare. Although the job would be beneficial for him professionally, he is strongly against this type of research. In addition, George's low level of commitment to the project would slow the progress of the research, providing for less advancement in chemical and biological warfare. The utilitarian reply to this would be that George should accept his j...
Promote human flourishing and ameliorate suffering. However, there are two large flaws with the Utilitarian perspective, first that good consequences do not determine the right thing to do. Just because something immoral had good consequences in the long run does not make it okay. A Utilitarian would respond by saying one sacrifice to save ten people. This conflicts with morality because there is no circumstance where murdering an innocent person is acceptable. The second flaw is that it is impossible to live by because it is too demanding. If there is always something more you can do, you should sacrifice all of your time and money to do better for the world. Utilitarisnism should be taking into consideration what it means to be
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.
... and also towards the wellness of all human being in general. There is not anyone watching over me or judging my moral code. However, I just feel responsible for my actions; a moral code should always be in my consciousness, and it tells me how to act in all situations. A thing to remember about these theories is that they are concerned with the greater good. Utilitarians do not care about a person personal life or whether a person actions happen to hurt some people. As long as the results of a person’s actions lead to more pleasure than pain, you are in the clear. For me, being a good person means doing good, and make good decisions. Human beings are not to be viewed as a means to an end but as ends in themselves. Utilitarianism believes that humans are to be treated with respect, but respect must take into account the everyday situations in which a person live.
Briefly, utilitarianism holds that the consequences of an action determine its moral worth and that the relative balance of happiness over suffering constitutes the highest good (Mill, 358). From a utilitarian perspective killing the president is permissible because it tremendously benefits the happiness of millions while causing suffering to the smallest possible measure of people. Because the judgment that renders it permissible to kill the president is based off of the consequences, it makes little reference to the president as a particular person or to his efficacy as a moral agent. Indeed, individuals who favor utilitarianism seem incredibly likely to render the murder of a single person to save millions morally justified regardless of who that person was or the manner in which that person conducted their life. I consider this problematic because it essentially makes any life expendable for a good enough reason, thus undervaluing the dignity inherent in being a person and, by focusing merely on the desirability of the outcome; it neglects the morally relevant distinction between killing an innocent or culpable person. If a...
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
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
Utilitarianism, the theory of ethics which judges actions in condition of the consequences. If the consequences are good, then the actions are also good. If the consequences are not good, then the actions are also judge as not being good. Goodness is in deflect judged in condition of the amount of happiness a behavior show. It could be argue that from a utilitarian peculiarity of inspection, the consequences of staying brisk may likely lead to the factor performing more Acts of the Apostles that increase the general happiness.
“Utilitarianism proposes a clear and simple moral criterion…[It] is interested in the consequences of our actions: If they are good, the action is right; if they are bad, the action is wrong” (Rosenstand, 2009, p. 225). In other words, consequences should direct our actions and move of us to make the correct the choice. It’s an approach where you have more control over the outcomes, even though you cannot have complete control over them. In this approach, people are also held more accountable for their actions.