Week 4 Discussion: Utilitarianism 876768

Week 4 Discussion Utilitarianism

Read/review the following resources for this activity: Textbook: Chapters 7, 8. Lesson. Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook). Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.).

The principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of decisions. Although it does not get directly said, there is an inverse intention to minimize the undesirable outcome of a disaster. Utilitarian decisions are directed toward outcomes—that is, the consequences of decisions.

We need to look at results. We first look at the actual results of an action. We judge if it was the best possible result. We can judge the actual results in comparison to other results that reasonably could be said to have been possible. If we do not yet have the actual results of an action, we do not know if it is moral or not.

We can talk hypothetically about what might happen, and then what that would show about the morality of an action. However, if we do not know what the action had as its consequences, we cannot yet say if it is moral or not.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical framework of utilitarianism emphasizes actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering. This consequentialist approach guides moral decision-making by evaluating the outcomes to determine what promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. In this context, understanding the morality of an action hinges upon the actual or likely results it produces, emphasizing the importance of outcome-based judgments.

Utilitarianism, rooted in the works of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, advocates for an objective assessment of consequences to inform moral choices. It posits that actions are moral if they produce favorable outcomes, and immoral if they lead to undesirable results. This emphasis on results often leads to complex ethical dilemmas, especially when individual rights or justice conflicts with collective happiness.

One of the core principles of utilitarian decision-making is that the morality of an act can only be evaluated after observing its actual consequences. If the outcomes are unknown, moral judgments are premature. This approach underscores the importance of empirical evidence and careful prediction when making moral decisions, particularly in healthcare and policy contexts where actions can significantly impact many individuals.

For example, consider the morally challenging scenario of euthanasia in a hospital setting—specifically, a situation where elderly patients request assisted death due to unbearable pain. A utilitarian would evaluate such decisions based on whether ending suffering results in a net increase in happiness. If allowing patients to choose assisted death relieves their pain and leads to a better overall outcome, the utilitarian would likely endorse that action. Conversely, if the action causes widespread fear or undermines trust in the healthcare system, its moral permissibility might be questioned.

Utilitarianism distinguishes itself from ethical egoism and social contract theory, primarily through its focus on collective welfare rather than individual benefit or societal agreements. Ethical egoists maintain that actions are moral if they serve one's self-interest, which can conflict with utilitarian concerns for the greater good. Social contract theorists, like Thomas Hobbes or John Rawls, emphasize moral principles derived from societal agreements, which may or may not prioritize happiness over justice or fairness.

In this context, utilitarianism’s strength lies in its ability to evaluate policies or actions based on their overall utility, while its weakness stems from difficulties in accurately predicting outcomes and quantifying happiness and suffering. Nonetheless, it remains a significant normative approach, especially in public health, environmental policies, and resource allocation where collective outcomes are paramount.

In healthcare, utilitarian principles often inform decisions such as prioritizing treatments or allocating resources during crises. For example, when hospitals face resource shortages, utilitarian reasoning guides them to prioritize patients who would benefit most, thereby maximizing overall health gains. Critics argue this approach can marginalize vulnerable populations, raising questions about justice and individual rights.

In summary, utilitarianism offers a practical framework for moral decision-making based on outcomes. Its focus on empirical results and maximization of happiness provides clear guidance but also presents challenges related to outcome prediction and ethical trade-offs. Recognizing these complexities is essential for applying utilitarian principles responsibly in real-world scenarios.

References

• Rachels, S., & Rachels, J. (2019). The elements of moral philosophy (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Shafer-Landau, R. (2017). Freedom and moral responsibility: A critical analysis. Oxford University Press.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What's the right thing to do?. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and against. Cambridge University Press.
• Ross, W. D. (1930). The right and the good. Oxford University Press.
• Sen, A. (1979). Utilitarianism and practical reason. Cambridge University Press.
• Kagan, S. (2014). The limits of moral theory. Oxford University Press.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.