Tilitarianism In Michael Sandel's Justice
tilitarianism is a sort of mathematical morality. Rather than weighing on an individual’s conscience and values to make a moral decision, it provides him or her with an equation. If I make decision A, there will be X positive consequences and Y negative consequences; if I make decision B there will be X positive consequences and Y negative consequences. Therefore, it would be morally correct to choose A or B based on the highest number of positive consequences or the lowest number of negative consequences. In the words of Michael Sandel in his book Justice, “Its (utilitarianism) main idea is simply stated and intuitively appealing: The highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of pleasure over pain.” The idea
that morality can be an exact science is attractive because it takes all of the difficult decision making out of moral dilemmas. The question becomes how do we achieve the greatest amount of happiness and pleasure in life? Consequently, the “right thing” is always what creates the greatest amount of net happiness regardless of the type of suffering it may cause. There is a certain lawlessness, no “unforgivable sin”, no crime that is utterly prohibited; anything that generates a gain in overall happiness and pleasure should be accepted because it most benefits society as a whole. This does not in any way mean that violent solutions and otherwise intolerable behavior are promoted in utilitarianism, it simply means that they are to be at least considered as solutions to problems and not written off as unacceptable. An example Michael Sandel uses is that of a terrorist who planted a nuclear bomb in New York
City. The only way to get the terrorist to talk would be to torture him. If tortured, the terrorist's suffering would be out weighed by the happiness gained by the hundreds of thousands who survived. This is an easy question and even most people without utilitarian beliefs would agree that this would be the best course of action. Utilitarianism provides a clearer line when Sandel uses a second example of a similar scenario. Imagine that the same terrorist planted the same nuclear bomb in New York City, but torturing him will not get you the necessary information. In order to get the information you need, you must torture his innocent daughter. This second situation illustrates my point on lawlessness. A utilitarian would immediately say torture the daughter and save the city. The happiness gained from the thousands who survive outweighs the suffering of the terrorist and his daughter. But without an absolute utilitarian mindset, a person might say it is unacceptable to inflict that kind of pain on an innocent girl and disregard the option of her torture completely.
Utilitarianism is the most logical of all moral standpoints. Everybody’s happiness is equally considered and whatever maximizes total happiness is what should be done. It makes perfect sense as there is a certain degree of a utilitarian in all of us. Although there are obvious controversies between utilitarianism and many peoples' fundamental morals, the simplicity and efficiency at least deserve our attention.
that morality can be an exact science is attractive because it takes all of the difficult decision making out of moral dilemmas. The question becomes how do we achieve the greatest amount of happiness and pleasure in life? Consequently, the “right thing” is always what creates the greatest amount of net happiness regardless of the type of suffering it may cause. There is a certain lawlessness, no “unforgivable sin”, no crime that is utterly prohibited; anything that generates a gain in overall happiness and pleasure should be accepted because it most benefits society as a whole. This does not in any way mean that violent solutions and otherwise intolerable behavior are promoted in utilitarianism, it simply means that they are to be at least considered as solutions to problems and not written off as unacceptable. An example Michael Sandel uses is that of a terrorist who planted a nuclear bomb in New York
City. The only way to get the terrorist to talk would be to torture him. If tortured, the terrorist's suffering would be out weighed by the happiness gained by the hundreds of thousands who survived. This is an easy question and even most people without utilitarian beliefs would agree that this would be the best course of action. Utilitarianism provides a clearer line when Sandel uses a second example of a similar scenario. Imagine that the same terrorist planted the same nuclear bomb in New York City, but torturing him will not get you the necessary information. In order to get the information you need, you must torture his innocent daughter. This second situation illustrates my point on lawlessness. A utilitarian would immediately say torture the daughter and save the city. The happiness gained from the thousands who survive outweighs the suffering of the terrorist and his daughter. But without an absolute utilitarian mindset, a person might say it is unacceptable to inflict that kind of pain on an innocent girl and disregard the option of her torture completely.
Utilitarianism is the most logical of all moral standpoints. Everybody’s happiness is equally considered and whatever maximizes total happiness is what should be done. It makes perfect sense as there is a certain degree of a utilitarian in all of us. Although there are obvious controversies between utilitarianism and many peoples' fundamental morals, the simplicity and efficiency at least deserve our attention.