Utilitarianism Vs Libertarianism

Save the Poor or Be Free to Create Your Own Choices

Thank you for understanding the importance of incorporating an ethical perspective into this serious situation. With my expertise, I believe that the government should employ a utilitarian approach, which maximizes the greatest prosperity to the greatest number of the population, by requiring Lester Lumber Company to distribute the remaining lumber amongst the poor at a discounted price. The alternative option is libertarianism, which is the idea of creating minimal state interference and allowing inequality to occur due to people’s freedom of choice. In my opinion, you should not carry out a libertarian ethical theory, as a utilitarian perspective allows for the maximum happiness in a wholesome
society, creates equal justice for all, and judges people based on the consequences. This is an extremely severe case as the vast majority of your people are in need, there is a large economic difference between people, and the consequences of inaction could result in people losing their lives. The relevant aspects of the utilitarian theory are described in detail below followed by my analysis of how this applies to the situation in Moraland.
The foundation of utilitarianism is the idea of pleasure over pain.
It takes into account a kind of cost-benefit analysis that incorporates the immense amount of people in society and tries to maximize the Greatest Happiness Principle. This principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, pg.7). This shows utilitarian’s hope to create an excelling society by including the satisfaction for the largest amount of people with no intention of punishing others. The true morals are based off qualitative and quantitative happiness. Qualitative happiness is shown by the intensity of the pleasures, or who needs it more than others. Quantitative is simply the most amount of people that are in need of the pleasure. With these measurements of pleasure and pain, utilitarianism can create the maximum amount of happiness. For utilitarians, the utility of happiness is the ultimate purpose to human life. The most important thing for everyone is to incorporate happiness and maximize it whenever necessary and for the most people in all of society. Utilitarianism is not an egoist theory. They do not intend on creating contentment for an individual, but rather the entire society. This enforces the idea that pleasures in society while diminishing pain should be the primary ambition for
humans.
To achieve this ultimate goal of human life being full of happiness, utilitarians incorporate the concept of justice.
They believe distributing the justice among everyone in society so that everyone is able to be treated fairly and with respect. “If it is a duty to do to each according to his deserts, returning good for good as well as repressing evil by evil, it necessarily follows that we should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of us” (Mill, pg. 61). This reinforces the utilitarian points on how people, wealthy or poor, should be treated equally and have the right to achieve the same levels of happiness. By creating equality within the society, utilitarians are then able to form the Greatest Happiness Principle. It is considered unjust not to treat others equally and with
respect.
These pleasure and pains are constructed and measured by consequentialism. Consequentialism is a theory that human actions contain moral worth only by the judgement of their consequences. Everyone has consequences for their actions and that can be measured by the satisfaction of an act that occurred. The consequences are measured by how just and moral an action is through the utility of happiness. If something that you do helps more in society, than it considered just and creates maximum contentment, which is what utilitarianism incorporates in its theory.
Applying the utilitarian approach, the Moraland government should take action because it is important to save the greatest number of people as it will maximize the greatest happiness. It will increase society’s pleasure by keeping them secure and decreasing their pain. The potential costs on the side of the large population of impoverished citizens could be as high as lost lives, whereas the costs for the Lester Lumber Company would be that they would not receive a bonus in their pay. It seems like the expense of people’s lives can be easily measured as being qualitatively and quantitatively more important than someone’s pay raise. Libertarians would say that it is Lester’s choice whether he wants to raise the prices of the lumber or not. However, this is unjust because this will not create the greatest amount of happiness for society as a whole. The pleasures of having lives saved are quantitatively and qualitatively higher than someone getting a bonus in their paycheck. This utilitarian choice will create the most happiness for the most people.
Another aspect of utilitarianism that is vital within this scenario is that people desire happiness, but it isn’t just one person, and it isn’t distributed unfairly. The happiness within utilitarianism is for the entire society, not just the individual. Utilitarianism holds true to the values of a complete society. Justice is necessary to preserve this happiness within society, and that is done by treating people equally. There is no higher or lower status, there is only a difference in pleasures, yet this does not change the equality of the individual. If justice wants to be achieved, equality has to be incorporated, and this is what the Lester Lumber Company should provide for the poor individuals. The inequality that occurs within the citizens in this scenario is not just. It is unfair to raise the prices when you know that it could endanger all of the people that cannot afford the lumber to build their houses in order to survive. This is putting a price on human life. Another problem with inequality is that libertarians create the view that it should be the individual’s choice whether they want to raise the price or not. But, what about those poor and impoverished individuals who did not gain the ability to choose where and when they were born? Choice is a sizeable factor within the libertarian view, and it seems wrong to compose a choice when the other party cannot. Since those who were impoverished are not able to choose their own lives, Lester should not be able to choose whether he raises the prices of the lumber or not. It is not acceptable for certain people applying “greed that preys on human misery” (Sandel, pg. 9). In order to create an equal and just society, utilitarianism would be the best option due to it creating the greatest happiness as well as distributing equality within each individual.
The maximum amount of satisfaction is incorporated with the consequences of the actions that would be taking place on this island. If this position is not taken, people could lose their lives. The outcome would have a negative moral worth and is, therefore, unjust. Endangering the lives of anyone without adequate shelter is a consequence that is not acceptable within this situation and the government needs to interject.
Although it is recommended that you employ the utilitarian approach in this severe situation, the fact that extreme storms occur frequently on this island requires a longer-term solution be determined. It would be unfair to continuously take the utilitarian choice and deprive the businessman of his lumber payments. I believe that you should immediately create a task force to provide plausible solutions such as finding a different type of material for housing that can endure the repeated, strong storms etc. Given Mr. Lester’s knowledge of the industry and experience he may be a useful member on the task force, allowing him to be part of the resolution of creating the greatest happiness for the Moraland Island as a whole.