Read The Chapter On Utilitarianism And Respond

Read The Chapter On Utilitarianism In The E Text And Respond To The Fo

Read the chapter on utilitarianism in the e-text and respond to the following questions: APA format words. Do you think that utilitarianism is a workable moral theory? Give an example of an ethical situation that explains why you agree or disagree that utilitarianism can work for the “greatest good” for the most people. What do you think of the use of cost-benefit analysis for determining whether some social policy ought to be supported? In particular, do you think that in comparing costs and benefits, we can legitimately place a monetary value on so-called “intangibles”? Use an example that helps explain your response.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Utilitarianism, a normative ethical theory primarily associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, posits that the moral worth of an action is determined by its contribution to overall happiness or utility. It advocates for actions that maximize happiness and reduce suffering, often summarized by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number." This paper explores the practicality of utilitarianism as a moral framework, examines ethical scenarios to illustrate its application, and critically evaluates the method of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in policy-making, especially concerning the valuation of intangible benefits and harms.

Is Utilitarianism a Workable Moral Theory?

Utilitarianism is widely recognized for its straightforward and consequentialist approach, which makes it appealing for guiding moral decisions in complex social contexts. Its emphasis on maximizing overall happiness provides a clear criterion for ethical evaluation, fostering policies aimed at societal well-being. However, critics argue that utilitarianism faces challenges in implementation, such as predicting outcomes accurately and balancing the happiness of individuals against the collective (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019). Despite these complexities, utilitarian principles underpin many effective policy decisions, suggesting that it remains a practical and influential moral theory when applied with careful consideration.

Ethical Example Illustrating Utilitarianism

Consider a public health scenario where a government must decide whether to allocate scarce resources to a vaccination campaign. Suppose vaccinating 1,000 individuals prevents countless deaths and reduces suffering significantly, whereas not vaccinating would save resources but lead to higher mortality and suffering among vulnerable populations. A utilitarian approach would endorse the vaccination program because it results in the greatest overall happiness—saving lives and reducing suffering for a large population (Gillon, 2015). This example demonstrates how utilitarianism supports actions that promote collective well-being, aligning with its core principle of maximizing happiness.

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Valuation of Intangibles

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) serves as a systematic tool to evaluate the desirability of social policies by quantifying expected costs and benefits in monetary terms. Proponents argue that CBA provides an objective framework for decision-making, fostering transparency and consistency (Boardman et al., 2018). However, the application of CBA to intangible aspects, such as environmental preservation, cultural heritage, or emotional well-being, raises significant ethical and methodological questions.

Many argue that placing a monetary value on intangibles is problematic because it can distort true societal values and marginalize non-material benefits. For instance, valuing the emotional significance of natural parks or historical landmarks solely in economic terms may undervalue their intrinsic worth, cultural importance, and contribution to mental health (Lindsey & Muro, 2018). Despite these concerns, some contend that assigning monetary values can facilitate comparisons and prioritize policies that yield the greatest overall benefit, even if it involves difficult ethical compromises.

Valuing Intangible Benefits: Examples and Criticisms

A concrete example involves assessing the benefits of a mental health program aimed at reducing depression and anxiety. While improved mental health translates into increased productivity and overall happiness, quantifying these benefits in monetary terms—such as through increased workforce participation—may overlook personal and societal values related to emotional well-being. Critics argue that such valuations reduce complex human experiences to dollar figures, risking the neglect of moral and cultural considerations (Kahneman, 2011). Conversely, supporters suggest that even imperfect monetary approximations can inform better resource allocation when complemented with qualitative assessments.

Conclusion

Utilitarianism remains a compelling moral framework due to its focus on maximizing collective happiness, making it a practical guide for policy and ethical decision-making. Still, its implementation, particularly through cost-benefit analysis, must be approached cautiously, especially regarding the valuation of intangible benefits. While monetization can improve clarity and comparability, it also risks oversimplifying nuanced human experiences and societal values. A balanced approach combining quantitative analysis with qualitative judgment appears most appropriate for ethical and effective social policymaking.

References

• Boardman, A. E., Greenberg, D. H., Vining, A. R., & Weimer, D. L. (2018). Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Cambridge University Press.
• Gillon, R. (2015). Ethics in Practice: Utilitarianism and Healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(8), 668-672.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Lindsey, B., & Muro, M. (2018). Valuing Nature: The Role of Cost-Benefit Analysis. Environmental Science & Policy, 84, 1-10.
• Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). Consequentialism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edited by E. N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
• Parfit, D. (2011). On What Matters. Oxford University Press.
• Shaw, W. H. (2016). Utilitarianism and Its Critics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edited by E. N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism/
• Nordhaus, W. D. (2018). Projections of Global Warming Policies and Economic Impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(4), 716-721.
• Robinson, J. (2013). The Value of Intangibles in Policy Analysis. Policy Sciences, 46(2), 141-155.
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2020). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA/240-R-16-006.