Discussion: Week 2 Please Read This Article Then Review ✓ Solved

Discussion: Week 2 Please read this article then review and

Please read the article and review the questions below: One way to conceptualize utilitarianism is to hold that the morally required thing to do is to increase the intrinsic good in the world. Trigg is doing just that. But is he going far enough? If one is morally obligated to maximize the good in the world when should he stop?

Should Trigg and the rest of us give all of our income to save the poor - right up to the point of being poor ourselves?

For this week's discussion, you will consider how utilitarianism applies to a controversy, dilemma, event, or scenario. The aim is not to simply assert your own view but to identify, evaluate, and discuss the moral reasoning involved in addressing the chosen issue. Your posts should remain focused on the ethical considerations, and you must specifically address the way a utilitarian would approach this issue by explaining and evaluating that approach.

You are required to post on at least two separate days, include at least one substantial reply to a peer or to your instructor, and your posts should add up to at least 400 words.

Consider the Trolley Problem: What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person? If the overall consequences were the same, would it matter if you were intentionally harming that person or not?

You will need to engage with the text on what a utilitarian would say is the right action in each case, reflecting on your agreement or disagreement with the utilitarian approach. Discuss with your peers to draw out the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism, especially in regard to the Trolley Problem scenarios.

Paper For Above Instructions

Utilitarianism, as articulated by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, is an ethical framework that posits the greatest happiness principle. This principle suggests that an action is right if it tends to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (Mill, 1863). The moral dilemma presented in the article revolves around the utilitarian perspective on the distribution of resources and life-and-death decisions encapsulated in the Trolley Problem. The questions raised prompt a profound reflection on moral obligations and the implications of our actions in maximizing overall good.

In considering Trigg's viewpoint on whether one should give all their income to save the poor, a utilitarian might argue that one is morally required to maximize good until doing so endangers their welfare. Trigg’s approach indicates a commitment to altruism, yet it also invites scrutiny regarding the limits of self-sacrifice. A utilitarian can argue that self-preservation is crucial as it allows one to continue helping others. Thus, the obligation to maximize happiness begins to taper off when an individual's own capability to contribute is compromised (Rachels & Rachels, 2019).

The Trolley Problem offers two distinct scenarios that challenge the utilitarian framework. In the first scenario, where you can pull a lever to save five workers at the expense of one, a classical utilitarian would likely endorse pulling the lever. This action adheres to the utilitarian maxim that prioritizes saving the greater number of individuals (Foot, 2002). The moral calculus involves weighing the lives saved against the life lost, and a utilitarian would conclude that sacrificing one for five produces a net positive outcome.

However, the second scenario complicates matters. Inflicting harm—by pushing a large man to his death to stop the train—introduces the variable of intent. A utilitarian might contend that the consequences justify the act. However, many intuitively feel that intentionally causing harm to an individual, even for a greater good, is morally unjustifiable. This illustrates a potential limitation of utilitarianism, where the morality of an action becomes entangled with the actor's intent and the moral weight of their actions (Smart & Williams, 1973).

Reflecting on the two scenarios raises critical questions about moral responsibility. In the first case, I find myself agreeing with the utilitarian perspective—I would pull the lever. The argument is straightforward: saving five lives justifies the loss of one. Yet, in the second scenario, my hesitation reflects a common objection to utilitarian reasoning: it feels morally dubious to take a life intentionally, even with the aim of saving others. This illustrates a tension between utilitarian logic and deontological principles, highlighting a potential flaw in a purely utilitarian approach (Kant, 1785).

Defending a utilitarian approach in the first scenario is relatively straightforward: it hinges on tangible outcomes and a calculation that favors saving more lives. Conversely, defending harm in the second scenario is significantly more challenging. Critics might argue that utilitarianism can become morally permissive, allowing for harmful actions if they result in a greater overall benefit. This draws criticisms from those who value the moral significance of individual rights and the integrity of intentions (Singer, 2011).

In discussions with peers, I anticipate a divergence in perspectives. Some may argue that the act of pushing the large man is justified by the greater good, while others may staunchly hold that no amount of rationalization can justify intentional harm. Engaging in such discussions will expose the nuanced layers of utilitarian reasoning, and will allow for a robust analysis of its viability as a moral framework in practical dilemmas.

Ultimately, the utilitarian perspective provides a distinct lens for analyzing ethical dilemmas, yet it is not without its challenges. The application of utilitarianism to real-world scenarios often delves into complex moral considerations beyond simple calculations of happiness (Savulescu, 2014). It is essential to strike a balance between maximizing the good while recognizing the ethical implications of our actions.

References

• Foot, P. (2002). The trolley problem. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(5), 273-275.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. (Translated by H. J. Paton, 1964)
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2019). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Savulescu, J. (2014). The Ethics of Enhancement. In Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association.
• Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thames, B. (2018). How should one live? Introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education.