Humans thrive on the ability to make choices and have options. Choices allow for the greatest individuals benefit and ensures that we survive by making the best decisions for our well-being. Modern society has evolved in a way where we are no longer in constant danger for our lives, but instead, are looking for ways to thrive. Utilitarianism is a well-known moral theory that bases itself on the universal principle of utility which is described as “always acting in ways that maximize happiness and minimizing harm for the aggregate”. A theory such as Utilitarianism is very attractive and makes moral sense intuitively. But there are some things that are wrong with such a vast overarching theory, such as the concept of happiness and personal relationships.
…show more content…
Some might view these ideas as extreme and close minded. They would question the ability to care for others outside of our family/friend circle which is a valid concern. If we go back to to the homeless person we always ignore, the utilitarian would say we should give everything to him/her until we are on an equal playing field. Those who believe in Ethics of care would give him/her food and water, or maybe take this person to a homeless shelter. The homeless person can benefit from us, by us providing for them things they don’t have, but not in a way where we lose everything too. Ethics of care provides the ability to not only lead a private life, but a public one as well. Utilitarianism only has the choice of a public life. Ethics of care essentially coincides with what we already do in society. For public matters, there is beneficence as demonstrated with charity donations. For private matters, love and care, as demonstrated by family and friendship. We don’t have to care for anyone else in the world, but we choose to because it benefits them in a way. People don’t need a close personal relationship to donate some money to charities such as UNICEF. It’s an option, not a moral obligation although we may feel that way sometimes. When it comes to our loved ones, we’ll do just about anything and it’s safe to say that many people would agree to
Some might view these ideas as extreme and close minded. They would question the ability to care for others outside of our family/friend circle which is a valid concern. If we go back to to the homeless person we always ignore, the utilitarian would say we should give everything to him/her until we are on an equal playing field. Those who believe in Ethics of care would give him/her food and water, or maybe take this person to a homeless shelter. The homeless person can benefit from us, by us providing for them things they don’t have, but not in a way where we lose everything too. Ethics of care provides the ability to not only lead a private life, but a public one as well. Utilitarianism only has the choice of a public life. Ethics of care essentially coincides with what we already do in society. For public matters, there is beneficence as demonstrated with charity donations. For private matters, love and care, as demonstrated by family and friendship. We don’t have to care for anyone else in the world, but we choose to because it benefits them in a way. People don’t need a close personal relationship to donate some money to charities such as UNICEF. It’s an option, not a moral obligation although we may feel that way sometimes. When it comes to our loved ones, we’ll do just about anything and it’s safe to say that many people would agree to