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 would argue against it as this radical way of judgment would cause more dilemmas than it would give a resulting answer.
             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. The issue of euthanasia is a procedure that consist of assisting someone to commit suicide because of either extreme physical pain. The utilitarian would argue that it would be right to assist someone in their planned death. They say it would be the morally right thing to do because it would bring happiness to the individual that wants to end their life. Yet what about their family members that do not want that indivi
             ...