utilitarianism

A utilitarian believes in the action for the good for all people. This would mean that a Utilitarian would agree with the magistrate’s decision on framing the innocent man. The reason behind this agreement is that since the one man being killed is saving lives and saving chaos it makes it ethical, from a utilitarian standpoint. According to utilitarianism one must consider the consequences of a certain action. So in this case the magistrate must weigh the pros and cons of the decision to execute this man. The magistrate must be a utilitarian because he decided to kill the innocent man in an attempt make the majority of people calm. Utilitarian’s also believe in the idea of attaining happiness or pleasure. Therefore making a decision to kill the man the magistrate must believe that it will make everyone happy, making it morally correct in the magistrate’s eyes.
I personally do not agree with the magistrate’s decision in anyway. I firmly believe in a fair trial and having sustainable evidence to prove if someone is guilty or not guilty, so framing an innocent man to save the masses does not appeal to me. My alternative to this would be to control the mob of rioters with police enforcement. The mob of rioters are choosing to riot therefore having to pay the consequences if they become too violent or destructive. The man has done nothing wrong, no matter how useless he may be the magistrate, in my eyes, is morally wrong.
In conclusion, a utilitarian believes in the good for all people and also the pleasure for all people. The magistrate thought process was that killing an innocent man to save others would be morally correct. A utilitarian would agree with the magistrate’s decision because it saves majority of the people and stops the chaos that the riot would bring. My viewpoint on the situation is to save the innocent man’s life because that is what would be morally right. Also the mob of rioters could be stopped if the right actions are taken place.