Arguments Against The Utilitarian Approach

A staunch believer that few problems are limited to a single perspective or solution, I found the approaches outlined in “A Framework for Thinking Ethically” not only provided a basis to evaluate the other readings, but also offered relevant outlooks for real life situations. I found the multidimensional structure of DeGeorge’s “The Case of the Collapsed Mine” particularly interesting because there were so many dilemmas to evaluate. While analyzing it with my peers, it was common to find a consensus on one aspect, only to have it raise questions on another. On the other hand, Bernard Williams uses “Jim and the Indians” as an argument against the Utilitarian Approach (276), however, most of the people I discussed it with defaulted to that very
Having reached a telephone and learned that three volunteers died attempting to rescue them, “they felt it was their duty that at least some of them should be found alive” (272) even if that meant killing and cannibalizing one of their team. I find this inconsistent with the “ideal virtues that provide for the full development of our society” as outlined in the “Virtue Approach” (277) however, the miners certainly had the right to act in the manner they deemed most appropriate. So long as each of them agreed to this, the “Rights Approach” (276) would support the ethics of their
Hardin’s central claim is that in helping the world’s poor countries, wealthy countries risk overextending themselves and drowning in the same poverty. He presents the situation metaphorically, with lifeboats and the people inside them representing rich nations, while the poor drift in the ocean, wishing to climb aboard. While I agree with his argument that helping everyone is impossible and would result in complete disaster, he also acknowledges that there is room to help some. This is where we disagree. Hardin asserts that the ten empty seats on each boat would better serve as a buffer for “our own small safety factor” (291). This could find support from the “Utilitarian Approach” (276) as well as the “Common Good Approach” (277) so long as we are describing society from a national, rather than global standpoint. Interestingly, with a different definition of society, both approaches could also argue against it. For instance, one may see the greater good as saving the most lives, while another takes it to mean proving the safest standard for those already on the boats. I understand his concerns, largely based in fear of overpopulation and lack of resources that will arise from it; nevertheless, I find his disregard for human life unsettling. On an individual level, our positions in a wealthy country are nothing more than luck and despite economic