Pros And Cons Of Utilitarianism

Destroying the ecosystem would not be inherently wrong on the basis of utilitarianism if the usage benefits all citizens. The text explains utilitarianism as “everyone should perform that act or follow that moral rule that will bring about the great good (or happiness) for everyone concerned” (Thiroux & Krasemna, 2.3). All Utilitarians believe that every action shall be conducted with the highest consideration of all mankind. If each person used the nature for the benefit of all and the resources depleted, then it shall be acceptable. Given each person on the planet gives consent to wringing out the resources, then it can be justified to wringing out the resources. For example, cutting down trees to build a grocery store will be depleting the
environment of its supplies but it will be benefiting all. Each person on the new planet would be able to use the grocery store to provide for themselves and their families. In all scenarios similar to this, destroying the ecosystem is acceptable because each person would be positively affected by the depletion of resources.
Three objections to using nature to benefit all due to utilitarianism are the conservation of natural resources, misusage of nature and the fate of the unborn. Despite wanting to use nature for the good of all, nature must be conserved. Like the text states, many humans believe that natural resources are infinite (Thiroux & Krasemna, 16.2.1). The common misconception leads to abusing of natural resources. The abuse of our natural resources has been shown in oil shortages leading to desperate measures to restock on the supply. To refute the argument conservation of natural resources comes in the form on technology. According to the text, “alternative fuels and energy sources are being explored and developed” (Thiroux & Krasemna, 16.2.1). Biofuel, nuclear power, solar panels, and wind power are all examples of alternate ways to conserve the resources so intentional conservation by humans is not needed. With the technological advances becoming visible, especially on a new planet, the use of resources can be used for the sake of Utilitarianism. The second objection to the Utilitarianism argument is misusage of natural resources. Forms of misusage of natural
resources comes in the form of building unnecessary buildings, for example. In a town where there are only five office buildings needed having a sixth one built would be an example of misusing resources.
Another act that would be misusing would be citizens on the new planet would be using an open field to store waste. In the utilitarian society that efficiently use their resources, legal actions can be enforced to limit the amount of misuse of natural resources. Since the society is utilitarian, they are aware of the fact that all resources must be used to benefit all people. Given this knowledge, the misusage of natural resources would not occur because each citizen would be aware that their decisions must uphold everyone’s highest and greatest good. If those on this new planet deplete all the resources, the fate of the unborn is in question. As the text states, “a disregard for any form of innocent human life, born of unborn, will start the domino effect, which can end only in a complete disregard for human life in all of its aspects” (Thiroux & Krasemna 11.3.2). The lack of consideration for the unborn is disrespectful and inconsiderate because the unborn are being negatively affected before their life begins. With the lack of resources, the unborn will become extinct. This objection is valid because if the first generation
destroys all of the resources then the next generation’s resources are limited, and it is a domino effect from then on. Although Utilitarianism argues that depleting the resources for the good of the planet, the fate of the unborn would not benefit from the depletion so all would not be positively impacted by the depletion. Utilitarianism’s argument only focuses on the first generation while neglecting the future generations who have the unalienable right to natural resources. In addition to neglecting the future generations, the depletion of supplies would be inconsiderate of the past generations. The time, energy, and effort placed into the environment by the past generations would be destroyed. However, if the resources that are being depleted are being made to be sustainable for the sake of all, including the future generation, then depletion of the resources is acceptable. Utilitarianism is able to combat against the two objections of conservation, the misuage of nature based on the beliefs of the society and technology, and consideration for the future generations.

Suicide is subjective, every person’s situation is different. It is impossible to know how a person feels or the challenges that they face daily. The concept of suffering shall be a recurring theme when it comes to the suicide. The term mercy death refers to pain, the text states “because they [the patient] are in pain” (Thiroux & Krasemna 10.6). Admiral wanted to end his life because he could cope with his own circumstances anymore, which is a valid reason. He was suffering in his life. Nimitz felt that he accomplished everything that he wanted in his life so on the basis of the principle individual freedom, he was allowed to take his life because he was in control of it. In Suicide Plan, John Welles was diagnosed with prostate cancer and no longer wanted to suffer in his life so he asked his friend, Hunt Williams, to assist him in taking his life. The amount of pain and the hours spent doing treatment made Welles want to end the suffering hence why he asked for assistance from Hunt Williams. Like Welles, Joan Butterstein also was tired from suffering after witnessing her husband pass from illness. Both Welles and Butterstein had acceptable reasons to want to take their lives because they wanted to end their own misery. The act of suicide is not always wrong because each person can only endure certain amounts of suffering.