This essay examines whether Utilitarianism is the best normative ethical approach when making moral decisions, or if situation ethics/ natural moral law can be used. It includes all the content needed to approach this question.
‘Utilitarianism is the unfairest of all the normative ethical theories’
In ethics, Utilitarianism refers to a teleological ethical theory that’s objective is to create the greatest
possible outcome for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism comes from the word ‘utility’
meaning ‘useful’ therefore illustrates when applied to a moral decision it demonstrates how useful
an action is based upon assessing the end result. However, in this essay I will argue whether
Utilitarianism is only an unfair ethical theory that withholds limitations or if any other normative
ethical theories can be applied to moral decision making such as: Situation Ethics and Natural Moral
Law.
The concept of Utilitarianism being the unfairest of all normative ethical theories can appear cogent.
This is due to when being applied to moral decisions in life it allows a broad concept of how effective
Utilitarianism is in the world. This argument is strengthened when we compare this view with the
philosopher Philippa Foot who proposed the ‘surgeon dilemma’. Foot stipulated a surgeon has five
patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately,
there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young
traveller comes in for a routine check-up, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with
all five of his dying patients. As such, when applying this dilemma to the Utilitarianism principles it
would appear appropriate to kill the patient to save the other five people in need of the transplant
as it would create the maximum amount of pleasure- according to Bentham. Moreover, this
argument would be strengthened as according to the Hedonic Calculus of ‘fecundity’ , ‘extent’ and
‘duration’ there would be chances of future pleasures -if pleasure for the five people is able to live
than as one would be seeking the maximum amount of pleasure and happiness. However, there are
fundamental flaws on these premises perhaps when considering if the five other dying patients were
mass murderers would it still be considered appropriate to save their lives over one healthy person
who lives a morally good life even if it aligns with the principles of Utilitarianism thus strengthening
the argument. Moreover, if ‘extent’ is extended to constitute all the further potential patients in the
future who may visit the doctor they’d be inevitably reluctant to visit a doctor's surgery for check-up
if news was released, he killed one of his patients to save five other patients. This presents major
flaws in the argument and creates a sense of great ‘impurity’ , with more pain to arise than pleasure
- contradicting the premises of Utilitarianism of seeking more pleasure than pain. The lack of lucidity
of when to stop calculating affects whether the moral decisions is to kill the one healthy person is
right or wrong demonstrates this ethical theory is unfair when approaching moral decisions and
making this ethical theory unconvincing. However, this argument is weakened when comparing this
view with John Stuart Mill who hypothesises there is in fact clarity when using ‘Rule Utilitiltarinsm ’
through considering a rule which maximises pleasure and happiness, and would eradicate any
uncertainty about the right course of action as one is no longer required to calculate uncertain
future consequences and perhaps making Utilitarianism a fair ethical theory for approaching moral
decision . However, this idea is undermined when proposing a rule of ‘Do not kill’ perhaps this may
appear universal to everyone to follow to live and conform to an orderly society – however there will
always remain those who continue to break laws as their idea of seeking maximum pleasure may
arise through the act of killing. Therefore, indicates how these rules are controversial and will not
conform to all society, highlight how happiness is eminently subjective and not universal.
When accessing the validity of whether the concept of Utilitarianism is unfairest of all normative
ethical theories it may appear plausible through considering other ethical theories such as Situation
Ethics. This is a radical ethical theory which focuses on making moral decisions rather than following
laws and agrees that reason is the instrument of moral judgements, yet disagrees that the good is to
be discerned from the nature of things. This idea is strengthened through theologian Joseph Fletcher
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur monaemarie. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €7,89. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
