Preview

Utilitarianism Is Wrong

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
760 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Utilitarianism Is Wrong
First I would like to start off by defining what utilitarian mean well based off of the module a utilitarian is the person who believes in the greater good in other words a person who would take losses and justify it’s worth by the results gained from it. Now in regard to the question on how might utilitarian respond to the situation of the innocent man who was executed in order to keep the citizens from rioting. My answer to that is it would be the exact same result, because of how a utilitarian thinks. In situations like this I would guess that a utilitranian would not even hesitate to kill the innocent man, because a utilitrain would think that excuting the innocent man would be beneficial for the majority of the citizens so he would …show more content…
First Nothing in this world justifies killing an innocent man not even for the sake of the majority. let me refer back to the story of Abraham In the textbook “Practical Companion to Ethics.” When Abraham was talking to god about destroying the village when he said. “Wilt thou indeed destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou then destroys the place and spare it for the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from thee! Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?” (39) Then Abraham goes on to say “Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the lord, I who am but dust and ashes. Suppose five out of fifty righteous are lacking. Wilt thou destroy the whole city for lack of five?” (39) Then God listens to Abraham and says he won’t and Abraham manages to convince God himself to change his mind. Now I feel like this story is very much related to the topic we are discussing here in this story we can see that god and Abraham are not using utilitarianism to go about their decisions they are using Kent method …show more content…
I understand him being concerned about the peace and afraid of the riot, but he in my opinion would be able to calm the rioters down so why kill the innocent citizen? Is it really for the “people”? I do not believe so I think the mayor took this action for personal gains. In my opinion I think he did it so he could be loved by the people. Maybe an election was coming up, or maybe he just wanted to be popular amongst the citizen so he could hole on to his power as the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Burning his restaurant was a little bit too much, but it the heat of the moment it made sense. If you look at the big picture, everybody in the community was angry and had to express themselves. Its good they wasn’t going against each other. Mookie action got the Mayor attention and making him and the police scared. I predict if Mookie didn’t start the riot, after the cops killed Radio Raheem the different race and ethnic group would of started to point fingers at each other then a brawl would of broke out. Everyone should just come together as one and fight for justice. No need for people to fight each other everybody should come in peace. “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy,” Martin Luther King…

    • 604 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    nother utilitarian consideration that Allen makes is “the significance of capital punishment for the sense of justice of the secondary victims of homicides”. With this consideration Allen is referring to the family and friends of the deceased. As an example, an important aspect of…

    • 2408 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    On this topic of gay marriage I’ve chosen the two ethical theories of utilitarianism and the Kantian ethics theory. On the pro side the utilitarianism theory plays a huge role when referring to this topic. Some may argue that it is constitutional and some may say that it just isn’t the right thing to do in this country. With this theory the actions are said to be judged in terms of promotion of human happiness. If someone is happy why it should matter what the law or government thinks. It’s important in addition with this topic because gay marriage is something that has been going on for a couple years now. The news and media has made it obvious, and with this argument there are two sides. Should gay marriage be acted upon as something normal…

    • 1337 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The idea of the death penalty has forever been under fire as being an inhumane form of punishment for the men and woman convicted of our most heinous of crimes. The humane nature has once again been brought into question after a 2014 lethal injection in Oklahoma was botched. Clayton Lockett was on death row for the 1999 brutal murder, rape, and kidnap of Stephanie Neiman and seemingly without argument was sentenced the death penalty. However Lockett did not die from lethal injection but rather a heart attack after the “medical potion” administered failed to claim his life. Due to this I will attempt to illustration that lethal injection and the death penalty as a whole is an immoral through John Stewart Mill’s idea of utilitarianism…

    • 830 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Utilitarianism theory supports individual capability to foresee the costs of an act. A Utilitarian considers the decision of giving the best profit to a large number of people; this is known to be ethically correct.…

    • 101 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    death) is distributed, is of little importance compared to the benefits reaped by the punishments; essentially downplaying the tragedy of an innocent man being put to death. While there is a certain logic to this argument, and I can not refute its necessity in a complex and civilized society, it begs the question "Which is worse, for a murderer to kill an innocent man or for the government to kill an innocent man?" Van den Haag then continues to state that if one innocent life is saved by the execution of a convicted one, then the death penalty is just—a rather brash statement, and for multiple reasons. First, Van den Haag has clearly taken a Utilitarian approach to the death penalty, assuming that all or most convicts are in fact guilty and in such a case the death penalty would be just. The problem is there is no way to literally calculate the amount of happy and sad points without some sort of biased arbitration (how many sad points does an innocent man killed by the government earn?). Second, there is no statistical evidence of any kind, that execution is a more effective deterrent than life in prison or any other punishment—and given the finality of death, imprisoning a man for life seems a much more prudent option. And so, as a modern, complex, civilized, scientific society, with no evidence to support the claim that the death penalty prevents crime any better than life in prison, why should we gamble with the life of a potentially innocent man, when we may imprison him and statistically be just as…

    • 481 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Utilitarianism is a teleological theory which looks at the consequences of an act to decide whether it is right or wrong. There are lots of strengths to utilitarianism and not many weaknesses. One of the strengths is that it is a theory which established whether something was good or bad according to the majority of people. Bentham came up with this theory and it is known as the principle of utility. Bentham said ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we shall do’. This is the foundation for the principle of utility and it is a strength to utilitarianism as pleasure and pain can determine how people act. Bentham also said the aim of utilitarianism is ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’ and he used the Hedonic Calculus that he created to measure how good an act is and how many people it will affect, this is a major strength of utilitarianism because it tries to please everyone and each individual is equal. A weakness of Bentham’s view was noticed by Mill, Mill said it failed to differentiate humans from animals as animals can share the same pleasures that humans have, so this make human beings equal to animals. Mill also said that Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus was a weakness as it was too impractical as to use it you have to think of the; purity, intensity, certainty, extent, duration and fecundity of an act. In some situations this would be pointless as there might not be time to complete the Hedonic Calculus. For example is your house was on fire and you only had time to save either you cat or your dog you would not be able to think through the Hedonic Calculus as by the time you have your house would be burnt to the ground. This is a weakness to Bentham’s theory but not to utilitarianism because you can still please the majority without looking at the Hedonic Calculus every time you want to complete an act.Bernard…

    • 517 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The inclination that killing is bad is certainly rooted in the world around us, but I believe it is difficult for the reader to identity with the bystander at the switch in the trolley problem. How many times have you had the power to determine who lives and dies? Hopefully few to none, because of this it is easier to feel inclined that killing is bad because we grow up understanding the punishment associated with it (jail). To abiding by utilitarian ideals does make it permissible to kill a bystander, but only if the apparent utility of the situation will increase. In reality it is almost always impossible to fully grasp the full effect of an action until long after the decision has been made. It is for this reason that utilitarianism is the most plausible way to answer these two thought experiments but also why actual application (such as in the example of the Surgeon) is rarely if ever…

    • 586 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    For instance, the bystander can either pull the lever to murder five or murder one. Either way, it is a negative duty versus a negative duty as the end is murder. However, no matter if the conditions may clearly seem morally right or wrong as long as the end is for the greater good to others Utilitarians will be seen giving a thumbs up in approval. As a result, if the bystander in the Trolley Problem was Utilitarian the only option would be to save as many as possible and murder the one. Now, to say I don’t agree would seem foolish and selfish. I would choose to murder the one as well as the end is less negative, however, my morals tend to not consider the greater good of every one. I may begin my moral rational by putting myself in others shoes to consider how to act in the greater good of everyone, but I do believe that some of actions throughout my life could be seen as…

    • 444 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Which is more valuable: a game of push-pin or the study of Latin? Which has greater worth: the life of a single young girl or the lives of an entire community? These are the sorts of questions raised when dealing with the matter of utilitarianism. According to Jeremy Bentham, the father of the theory, the ultimate moral goal of human beings should be to increase pleasure and to decrease pain. To maximize the amount of time spent in content, and minimize the times of depression. And he has a point. Simply stated like that, everyone can agree that that is definitely something they want to achieve. But when his theory is applied to real-life conditions, the varying answers and resulting situations aren 't always applicable with such a cut-and-dry cure-all. Contrary to Bentham 's theory, just because doing something may seem to create an overall better situation than not doing something, it doesn 't necessarily mean that it should be done.…

    • 1260 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Ultilitarianism

    • 697 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In utilitarianism, there are no actions that are intrinsically wrong. “The morality of an action always depends on its results.” If those results are optimfic then the action is morally right. With this logic, killing/torturing innocents wouldn't be immoral. Most would recoil at this ‘immorality’, but, remember, in utilitarianism “kindness that fails to be optimific is immoral.” I believe this to a certain degree in which that in my opinion some immoral actions can be moral in certain circumstance. Contrastly, I think kindness is moral in most…

    • 697 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    There are 2 main types of utilitarianism, the first I will talk about is Rule. Rule utilitarianism has certain principles involved with it, and from these, certain actions that we commit are able to be deemed as unacceptable. The principle of utility is therefore applied to a rule so the rule will stay if it leads to greater happiness for more people. This therefore means that if you do something bad that may lead to many people being happy, it could go against a rule or principle that has been set down in Rule…

    • 616 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Living a day as a utilitarian was difficult but manageable. It would have been significantly harder if I had to do it for the rest of my life. Perhaps it was manageable because I wore the mask of utilitarianism for a day and knew that it would only be for a single day. Utilitarianism believe “an action is morally right if and only if it does more to improve oval well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances” (Shafer-Landau 115). This theory is not always equitable because there is no true way to measure happiness, it demands selflessness at all times, and does not respect someone’s rights at times. Although this theory is not equitable at times, it does benefit a greater number of people.…

    • 667 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Among the ethical arguments that we have seen, it is clear that a form of utilitarianism is the best option, that is, we should always do what brings about the best outcome where the outcomes are rated by the amount of good they bring about. The utilitarian argument says that in any given decision, the option that brings about the most good is the right thing to do every time. That being said, the definition of good is extremely important to the soundness of the argument. In this case, the best view of what is good is that of a hedonist, that is, a thing is good if it brings about pleasure and bad if it brings about suffering. To add to this however, I would argue that the best good outcome is the outcome which…

    • 1157 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    With consideration to absolute moral prohibition, it would be wrong to murder any number of innocent persons, despite any beneficial consequences. The benefits of murdering one would not outweigh the means of the action.…

    • 502 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays