Pollan’s Suggestion and Utilitarianism’s Goal of Creating the Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number
What would the response be from most Americans if they were told that if they spent a fifty percent more on food they could help themselves, the environment, and the starving populations of the world? How about if these Americans were utilitarian ethicists, virtue ethicists, or biblical ethicists? There are positives and negatives to each of these ethical systems in relation to Michael Pollan’s recommendation to eat more locally grown and organic food and less meat. However, I feel that Utilitarianism would respond best to this ethical challenge because of its goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In biblical …show more content…
Therefore each decision made should be based on how much happiness it will bring for the most people. In relation to America’s food industry, if presented with all the facts, utilitarian ethicists would come to the conclusion that the food industry is only providing happiness to companies that rule over it; companies such as Tyson and Monsanto. The consumers are not happy because they are getting ill from the food they eat. Americans are also unhealthy and obese because unhealthy food is cheaper and easier to access. The environment is being destroyed which will in turn make many people unhappy because they will not be able to enjoy the many species and environments being destroyed. The starving populations across the world are certainly not happy because they are malnourished and don’t have enough food to feed themselves, let alone their own children. Only a few people are happy in this current system. However, if what Pollan is suggesting is true, the system can be changed in order to help Americans, the impoverished populations, and the environment all at once. The only downside is that Americans would have to spend more money on their food. However, making Americans a little less happy for the happiness of future generations and the hungry seems like a pretty good trade. Also, many Americans can afford to spend more on food by cutting back on other unnecessary and extra expenses. Purely from a point of happiness for the most, Pollan’s suggestion seems like a no brainer and happiness is the basis of utilitarian ethics. Therefore, I feel that utilitarian ethicists would feel that following Pollan’s suggestion should be no brainer. Also, in looking at utilitarian ethics, everyone is “obliged to consider the well-being of all who are touched by our decisions” (Wilkens 99). This means that blindly buying food from a super-market is not a good choice in terms of
What would the response be from most Americans if they were told that if they spent a fifty percent more on food they could help themselves, the environment, and the starving populations of the world? How about if these Americans were utilitarian ethicists, virtue ethicists, or biblical ethicists? There are positives and negatives to each of these ethical systems in relation to Michael Pollan’s recommendation to eat more locally grown and organic food and less meat. However, I feel that Utilitarianism would respond best to this ethical challenge because of its goal of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. In biblical …show more content…
Therefore each decision made should be based on how much happiness it will bring for the most people. In relation to America’s food industry, if presented with all the facts, utilitarian ethicists would come to the conclusion that the food industry is only providing happiness to companies that rule over it; companies such as Tyson and Monsanto. The consumers are not happy because they are getting ill from the food they eat. Americans are also unhealthy and obese because unhealthy food is cheaper and easier to access. The environment is being destroyed which will in turn make many people unhappy because they will not be able to enjoy the many species and environments being destroyed. The starving populations across the world are certainly not happy because they are malnourished and don’t have enough food to feed themselves, let alone their own children. Only a few people are happy in this current system. However, if what Pollan is suggesting is true, the system can be changed in order to help Americans, the impoverished populations, and the environment all at once. The only downside is that Americans would have to spend more money on their food. However, making Americans a little less happy for the happiness of future generations and the hungry seems like a pretty good trade. Also, many Americans can afford to spend more on food by cutting back on other unnecessary and extra expenses. Purely from a point of happiness for the most, Pollan’s suggestion seems like a no brainer and happiness is the basis of utilitarian ethics. Therefore, I feel that utilitarian ethicists would feel that following Pollan’s suggestion should be no brainer. Also, in looking at utilitarian ethics, everyone is “obliged to consider the well-being of all who are touched by our decisions” (Wilkens 99). This means that blindly buying food from a super-market is not a good choice in terms of