Utilitarianism is a Form of Failed Ethics
Utilitarianism is when the best moral action is the one that maximizes the utility. Utility is defined as the well being of sentient entitles (wiki). Utilitarianism is based off the happiness of many people and if an action makes you unhappy it is frowned upon. Utilitarian Ethics is a theory the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing happiness to all those affected by it, which advocates the reasons of why those actions have brought out the greatest good overall (wiki). Bringing out the happiness in the greatest number of people in society can be considered the greater good according to ethical philosophy. It is said in utilitarianism that it is morally right …show more content…
In the book by Sterba, I agreed with Utilitarianism until I read the examples. I understand certain situations are the cause of certain actions, but I could not be someone who hurts innocent people to better my life or anyone else’s. There are many reasons why I disagree with this ethical theory from a moral standpoint. My morals would not allow me to just kill nor hurt someone because it will help me or others in my community in the long run. My conscience would never allow me to commit such heinous acts. Neither man nor woman should have such power. I disagree with killing someone that is healthy for five other unhealthy patients with the reason only being he has no relatives and no one will even know, as explained in Sterba’s Book “Introducing Ethics for Here and Now (pg56).” I don’t agree that this form of ethical reasoning is a great way to handle situations. If it is about happiness, why is causing pain to withstand from another pain an option? This theory is to make more people happier then less is not logical and very inhumane. Everyone’s definition of happiness is different and an entire community wouldn’t be able to agree 100% on such a difficult situation. Author Larry Neal Gowdy, states in his article Utilitarian Ethics, “For happiness to exist, there first must exist the components that combine to create happiness. Although the similarity of components may give rise to happiness in different individuals, the components will vary relative to each individual (para4).” The theory as a whole is unethical by all means. To take matters into our own hands could not be the best choice because everyone has their own beliefs and morals and depending on the decision it can cause a negative impact. People could feel victimized for instance, someone who may be sick may not want to tell anyone because they do not want to cause pain and suffering of their loved
Utilitarianism is when the best moral action is the one that maximizes the utility. Utility is defined as the well being of sentient entitles (wiki). Utilitarianism is based off the happiness of many people and if an action makes you unhappy it is frowned upon. Utilitarian Ethics is a theory the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing happiness to all those affected by it, which advocates the reasons of why those actions have brought out the greatest good overall (wiki). Bringing out the happiness in the greatest number of people in society can be considered the greater good according to ethical philosophy. It is said in utilitarianism that it is morally right …show more content…
In the book by Sterba, I agreed with Utilitarianism until I read the examples. I understand certain situations are the cause of certain actions, but I could not be someone who hurts innocent people to better my life or anyone else’s. There are many reasons why I disagree with this ethical theory from a moral standpoint. My morals would not allow me to just kill nor hurt someone because it will help me or others in my community in the long run. My conscience would never allow me to commit such heinous acts. Neither man nor woman should have such power. I disagree with killing someone that is healthy for five other unhealthy patients with the reason only being he has no relatives and no one will even know, as explained in Sterba’s Book “Introducing Ethics for Here and Now (pg56).” I don’t agree that this form of ethical reasoning is a great way to handle situations. If it is about happiness, why is causing pain to withstand from another pain an option? This theory is to make more people happier then less is not logical and very inhumane. Everyone’s definition of happiness is different and an entire community wouldn’t be able to agree 100% on such a difficult situation. Author Larry Neal Gowdy, states in his article Utilitarian Ethics, “For happiness to exist, there first must exist the components that combine to create happiness. Although the similarity of components may give rise to happiness in different individuals, the components will vary relative to each individual (para4).” The theory as a whole is unethical by all means. To take matters into our own hands could not be the best choice because everyone has their own beliefs and morals and depending on the decision it can cause a negative impact. People could feel victimized for instance, someone who may be sick may not want to tell anyone because they do not want to cause pain and suffering of their loved