Utilitarianism or living a dre
Remember back as a kid we would have to line up to play basketball? Two captions would alternate picking players on their team. However what would happen if their was an odd amount of kids playing and there was one extra kid left over? One solution would be to not let him or her play because it would make the teams uneven. Unfortunately for that individual he or she would be sadden to not being able to play. Yet another solution would be for the odd kid to find another person to play to make the teams even. With this situation everyone is happy as no one is excluded and the teams are even. Odd enough this is an exact representation of utilitarianism that these kids are practicing on the playground. The main focus of the idea of utilitarianism is that to distinguish between right and wrong is to decided in which actions would result happiness as opposed to sadness. In a way this method could exclude any authority figure to say what is right and what is wrong as you follow to what is pleasure and pain to oneself. Yet not all situations are as simple as playing basketball on the playground. In reality can you really based your decisions on whether all parties will be happy with the situation? I wou
ld argue against it as this radical way of judgment would cause more dilemmas than it would give a resulting answer. We can not say these people can not be put into consideration with their immoral thinking because in the utilitarianism way morality is based on the individual. So the two issues Rachel brought up to prove utilitarianism is a working theory does not make me a believer. In a utilitarian point of view is that even though animals do not carry souls and do not have a moral standing, that overall they experience pain and as a result should not be subjects to experimentation. Either decision would result of sacrificing the health of both parties. Then again what about the human patients that are depending on the development of that research? Aren't they suffering as a result of an illness that gives them pain? Plus we can not kill them off with euthanasia because they want to find a cure for their illness. The utilitarian would argue that it would be right to assist someone in their planned death. My decision would be to hit the tree. As a result I have my own philosophical approach to certain dilemmas to counteract the utilitarian way. In James Rachels' work "The Utilitarian Approach," he tries to defend utilitarianism to applying the concept on two issues: Euthanasia and the treatment to animals. Yet what about their family members that do not want that individual to go? Doesn't that cause other people to be sadden as multiple people are sad as opposed to one person ending their life? Putting them into consideration would make the argument sided towards not going towards euthanasia. Also the person walking on the road will not be injured at all. In conclusion, being a utilitarian would be useless. Treatment of animals is another issue brought in the reading to clarify utilitarianism. The main flaw I can debate against utilitarianism is that how can all parties benefit happiness from one solution? The book quotes that "Morality is not a matter of pleasing God, nor is it matter of faithfulness to abstract rules.
Common topics in this essay:
Utilitarian Approach,
,
euthanasia treatment animals,
treatment animals issue,
play teams,
animals issue,
treatment animals,
euthanasia treatment,
bring happiness,
|
Acceptance Essays
