Utilitarianism Resources Read Review

Utilitarianismrequired Resourcesreadreview The Following Resources Fo

The following resources should be read and reviewed: Chapters 7 and 8 of the textbook, along with one scholarly source in addition to the textbook, are required for this activity.

The principle of utility involves maximizing happiness and minimizing undesirable outcomes of decisions. Utilitarian decisions focus on the outcomes—specifically, the consequences of actions. An action is judged based on its actual results, comparing what was achieved to other possible results that could have reasonably been realized. If the actual consequences are unknown, the morality of the action cannot be definitively assessed; only hypothetical scenarios can be discussed until results are known.

Paper For Above instruction

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that emphasizes the maximization of happiness and the minimization of suffering as the fundamental basis for moral decision-making. This consequentialist approach evaluates actions based on their outcomes, aiming for the greatest good for the greatest number. In practical applications, utilitarianism requires a careful assessment of potential consequences, often comparing actual results with possible alternatives to determine if an action is morally justifiable.

To deepen our understanding of utilitarian ethics, consider how this framework applies across different moral dilemmas. For instance, one pertinent scenario involves healthcare decision-making—specifically, end-of-life choices in a hospital setting. Imagine a situation where a nurse on a hospital ward with only elderly patients faces an ethical dilemma: should they assist terminal patients in ending their lives to free up beds for others? The hospital is at full capacity with no nearby alternatives for critically ill patients, creating a scenario fraught with moral complexity.

The utilitarian perspective would prioritize actions resulting in the greatest overall happiness and the least suffering. If assisting terminal patients in euthanasia reduces pain and suffering for the individual patients and alleviates resource shortages affecting potentially more patients, a utilitarian might argue that this action is morally permissible or even required. Similarly, this approach would consider whether the long-term consequences, such as patient trust and societal attitudes toward euthanasia, support or oppose this decision. The utilitarian would weigh the aggregate happiness—relief from pain for the terminal patients and the potential benefit of saving more lives due to better resource allocation—against possible negative societal impacts or moral discomfort.

In contrast, a deontologist would focus on the moral duties and rights involved, emphasizing the intrinsic wrongness of killing regardless of outcomes. An ethicist practicing ethical egoism, which prioritizes individual self-interest, might oppose assisting euthanasia if it risks personal penalties or societal disapproval. Conversely, a social contract theorist would evaluate if such actions align with the agreed-upon rules governing societal behavior, likely opposing euthanasia outside legal and moral norms.

Another practical scenario involves privacy and technology: considering whether to use a free social media app that claims to analyze future appearance but poses potential risks to biometric data security. Suppose a person must decide whether to upload their facial image, knowing either John Doe’s concern about data ownership or Jane Doe’s warning about government sharing. From a utilitarian perspective, the decision hinges on the expected balance of happiness—such as convenience and entertainment—against potential risks like data misuse, privacy infringement, or future harm. If using the app results in high enjoyment with minimal risk, utilitarianism may endorse its use, especially if the societal benefits of innovation or security are considered.

On the other hand, a social contract theorist might assess the morality based on shared societal norms and laws regarding privacy rights and data protection. If societal agreements affirm that private biometric data must be protected, then using the app might be deemed unethical, especially if it could facilitate government surveillance or data sharing without consent. This emphasizes respect for individual rights and societal norms, aligning with a social contract perspective that prioritizes voluntary agreement and trust within society.

Finally, consider a college implementing affirmative action policies to enhance diversity and representation. Suppose XYZ College, a public institution with a 50% acceptance rate, offers bonus points to older, LGBT, Muslim, and African-American applicants to promote inclusivity. The primary moral conflict involves balancing fairness and meritocracy with social justice goals. Advocates argue that such policies correct historical disparities, foster diversity, and promote social cohesion. Critics contend they may unfairly advantage certain groups over others, potentially compromising fairness or leading to reverse discrimination.

From a utilitarian standpoint, the goal is to maximize overall societal welfare, including increased diversity, social harmony, and equal opportunity. If affirmative action leads to a more equitable and cohesive society, then it could be justified as morally virtuous. Conversely, social contract theorists might evaluate whether such policies uphold societal agreements on fairness and equal treatment. If these policies align with a collective commitment to justice and equal rights, they may be justified. However, if they violate principles of merit and fairness, these theorists might oppose them.

Furthermore, applying ethical egoism would consider whether such policies serve the self-interests of the college or its stakeholders. For students from underrepresented groups, affirmative action could enhance opportunities; for others, it might be perceived as unjust favoritism. The decision hinges on evaluating these competing interests and values.

In conclusion, utilitarianism emphasizes outcomes that maximize happiness and reduce suffering, guiding moral decisions in complex scenarios involving healthcare, technology, and social policy. It offers a pragmatic approach to balancing competing interests and societal welfare. The contrasting perspectives of deontology, egoism, and social contract theory enrich ethical deliberations, each highlighting different priorities—moral duties, individual interests, or societal norms. A comprehensive understanding of these frameworks can aid in making morally sound decisions that promote societal well-being while respecting individual rights and fairness.

References

• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Longman, Roberts & Green.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett Publishing.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Freedom and Reason. Oxford University Press.
• Hughes, J. (2020). Ethical issues in healthcare: An overview. Journal of Medical Ethics, 46(2), 89-94.
• Johnson, D. G. (2003). Computer Ethics. Prentice Hall.
• Liu, H. (2018). Privacy and data security in the digital age. Technology and Society, 17(3), 45-57.