Since ancient times, philosophers have been elaborating on the visions and ideas that can help individuals to make decisions in complicated life situations. Ethical philosophy is different from variety of other sciences and branches of philosophy, because it is more normative or prescriptive, rather than aimed at describing and explaining particular phenomena, encountered by individuals (Icheku 21-22). In other words, ethical philosophy is aimed at find out how one is ought to act, while other sciences tend to observe natural and societal phenomena. Making an ethical decision requires usage of one of the ethical decision-making frameworks. Among most famous frameworks for ethical decision-making one can mention the rights-based, the fairness, the virtue, the common-good and utilitarian approaches.
The rights approach has its roots in the philosophical woks of I.Kant, who substantiated the right of a person to choose for herself or himself, as well as the range of other rights. Among the other rights it is worth mentioning the right to know the truth, the right of privacy and the right not to be injured. In the rights-based framework ethical decision-making is concerned with taking into account all above-mentioned rights of all the stakeholders, who may be affected by the decision (White 20).
Fairness-based approach is based on the assumption of the need of equal treatment of those with equal status.
The virtue framework emphasizes the need for striving to certain ideals that can help one develop his/her humanity. Using this approach, one should choose the way of behavior that can reveal his/her human potential better than other available options.
The common good approach suggests that the good of one person is dependent on the good of the other, i.e., the good of community. Appeals to the common good make a decision-maker act in a way that can take into account the interests of community as a whole.
Finally, the adherents of utilitarian approach claim that the real measure of whether the act is a good or a bad one is the result of this act. Mill argues that one needs to consider the consequences of a particular act not only for a decision-maker, but all other individuals, who may be concerned. Furthermore, it is necessary to state that Mill argues that not the quantity, but the quality of happiness (as the main measure of any act’s consequences) needs to be taken into account. However, according to the assumption of Mill, one does not need to distinguish between his own happiness and happiness of other people, being a disinterested and benevolent spectator.
Nevertheless, in this regard it is really hard to find out what happiness is, and how one should behave, if he feels that he can easily make some people happy, but he is uncomfortable with committing this act. For example, let us imagine that a person, whose neighbors and addicted to drugs and experience sever implications of addiction, has an unlimited access to drugs. He is aware about the fact that providing neighbors with drugs will make them happy. However, he also knows that usage of drugs leads to severe health-related consequences for these people and knows that not making them happy can be more useful for them in long-term perspective (Martine 133)
What one should do, using utilitarian approach? It is hard to answer this question, even if one tries to apply the quality of happiness argument. If one thinks about the quality of happiness drug addicts may get, when using drugs, he/she may claim that this happiness is of low quality. Low level of this happiness quality can be explained by the fact that drugs are a source of artificial happiness. Nevertheless, original theories of prominent adherents of utilitarian framework, such as Mill and Bentham, do not include the distinction between natural and artificial happiness. Analysis of Mill’s statement of the need to be disinterested and benevolent spectators with regard to happiness of other people can lead us to the conclusion that a decision-maker is prevented from deciding what is good and what is bad for other people.
In other words, being a spectator, one does not have to intervene, because an intervention into the situation means that he can be no longer viewed as a spectator. Finally, one comes to the conclusion that adherence to the principle of utility leads to the decision to provide drug addicts with drugs as it will make them happy, and one is prevented from assessing the roots and nature of this happiness.
Let us consider the same situation through the lens of the Golden Rule principle, developed by Jesus from Nazareth. Before it is done, let us shortly recollect the scope of the Golden Rule. According to this moral postulate, one should treat other people as one would like other people to treat oneself. The negative formulation of this rule states that one should not treat other people in ways that one does not want to be treated by other people. So, will one, who, chooses whether he will help drug addicts by providing them with drugs, do it, if he adheres to the Golden Rule postulate? In order to get to know the answer to this question we should find out whether he would like to be given drugs if he is a drug addict.
This question has a two-folded answer. If the person, answering it, does not suffer from negative consequences of the drug addiction, he will answer that he would not like to be given drugs as they destroy human body. However, if the same person is asked the same question, when he suffers from withdrawal pains, he is likely to ask for being given drugs. However, as the rule suggests considering the situation from the point of view of the person, who needs to make a choice, this person is likely to choose not giving drugs to other people.
The difference between the results of the application of the principle of utility (as formulated by Mill) and the Golden Rule is evident. To my mind, this difference stems from the distinction between the ways we apply the rule.
In case of the principle of utility, a decision-maker considers happiness from the point of view of other people (e.g., the drug addicts), while the Golden Rule suggests that the decision-maker needs to analyze the issue from his own perspective. However, the similarity still exists as both concepts emphasize the need to consider other people’s perspective, when making decisions, being free from one’s wishes and interests. Here it is also necessary to mention that the formulating of the “Golden Rule” as “to love your neighbor as yourself” is still contrary to considering it an application of purely utilitarian framework. It is natural for people to do good things for beloved people. It is also natural for a person to decide to do something good for another person, applying well-known facts and formulas and considering the personality and interests of the beloved person. So, while the formulation of the Golden Rule by Mill differs from the common ones, its analysis still allows one to state that it cannot be traced from a utilitarian perspective. This statement can be explained by the fact that this formula of the “Golden Rule” is based on considering not only the amount and quality of happiness concerned people may get, but the personal perspective of a decision-maker.
Concluding I would like to state that the “Golden Rule” by Jesus is Nazareth can hardly be viewed through the lens of the principle of utility. While the principle of utility is based on considering the situation with the eyes of other people, the “Golden Rule” is grounded on a profound understanding of the situation by the decision-maker himself. This statement can allow the researcher to suggest that the application of the “Golden Rule” can sometimes be of more benefit for so-called “recipients” of happiness as in particular life situations they can lack will to make appropriate decisions. The example of applying these principles to the drug addiction-related situation shows that in many cases a decision-maker needs to go beyond perceiving happiness from the point of view of other people and consider the implications of his/her decision, abstracting away from a particular life situations.
Works cited
Icheku, V. Understanding ethics and ethical decision-making. Bloomington: XLibris Corporation, 2011. Print.
Martin, M.W. Of mottos and morals: simple words for complex virtues. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012. Print.
White, M. Kantian ethics and economics: autonomy, dignity and character. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011. Print.
