Utilitarianism:
Case One: According to Utilitarianism, the net good for all must be achieved. This includes both the quantity and the quality of the good. Moreover, there is a distinct difference between Egoism and Utilitarianism. In the first scenario, the consequences of the young man’s actions will only result in happiness for him. It is happiness of a great quality, however, it ignores the happiness of the 24 men, women, and children. Since the young man only pursues his own good, his actions are aligned with that of Egoism. Therefore, since the consequences of his actions result in a negative net good for all parties involves, his choice is immoral.
Case Two: When considering which course of action to taking using Utilitarianism, consequences …show more content…
First, the maxim is: those who seek to take civilian lives should be killed. Conceivably, this maxim could be willed to be a Universal Law. If innocent life is truly valued, it ought to be protected. Next, human beings are not used as a means. The person firing the rocket is doing his job, along with the Israeli Army, who are seeking to eliminate the terrorist organizations. Finally, the community protected by the Israeli Army can agree that it is morally right to kill those who wish to take innocent lives. Therefore, it is morally right to fire the rocket. The intentions are all that matter, therefore, the unforeseen consequences are unfortunate, but have no effect on the morality of the …show more content…
When the young man decides to detonate the bomb, thereby killing himself and 24 innocent people, he completely neglects all the virtues of Humanity, Justice, and Temperance. His actions are not aligned with love or kindness, except for himself. In addition, it is not fair that he should gain eternal happiness while 24 others are not given an opportunity for the same. Finally, he does not regulate himself and lacks prudence in committing suicide. By committing suicide, he prevents himself from ever reaching harmony by habituating himself to becoming virtuous. Therefore, the religion itself and the young man’s actions are not in alignment with Aristotelian
Case One: According to Utilitarianism, the net good for all must be achieved. This includes both the quantity and the quality of the good. Moreover, there is a distinct difference between Egoism and Utilitarianism. In the first scenario, the consequences of the young man’s actions will only result in happiness for him. It is happiness of a great quality, however, it ignores the happiness of the 24 men, women, and children. Since the young man only pursues his own good, his actions are aligned with that of Egoism. Therefore, since the consequences of his actions result in a negative net good for all parties involves, his choice is immoral.
Case Two: When considering which course of action to taking using Utilitarianism, consequences …show more content…
First, the maxim is: those who seek to take civilian lives should be killed. Conceivably, this maxim could be willed to be a Universal Law. If innocent life is truly valued, it ought to be protected. Next, human beings are not used as a means. The person firing the rocket is doing his job, along with the Israeli Army, who are seeking to eliminate the terrorist organizations. Finally, the community protected by the Israeli Army can agree that it is morally right to kill those who wish to take innocent lives. Therefore, it is morally right to fire the rocket. The intentions are all that matter, therefore, the unforeseen consequences are unfortunate, but have no effect on the morality of the …show more content…
When the young man decides to detonate the bomb, thereby killing himself and 24 innocent people, he completely neglects all the virtues of Humanity, Justice, and Temperance. His actions are not aligned with love or kindness, except for himself. In addition, it is not fair that he should gain eternal happiness while 24 others are not given an opportunity for the same. Finally, he does not regulate himself and lacks prudence in committing suicide. By committing suicide, he prevents himself from ever reaching harmony by habituating himself to becoming virtuous. Therefore, the religion itself and the young man’s actions are not in alignment with Aristotelian