Good An Ethical Theory Essay Example

Utilitarianism is an ambiguous attitude to both liberalism and justice. On the one hand, it provided the philosophical justification of political trend of neo-liberalism, which replaces the classical liberalism. We can consider the first Hypothetical primarily from the point of view of justice, because the ultimate goal of this theft is the redistribution of wealth in society. That is why in terms of utilitarianism theft and further assistance to the poor is a good thing because it is useful for society. Utilitarianism believes that social welfare is the sum of individual utility functions of all members. Therefore, fair, according to the utilitarians, it is considered the distribution of goods that maximizes the total utility of all members of society. The utilitarianism of action can not be absolute rules against killing, stealing, lying and so on, because the situations are different. Thus all the actions that are generally regarded as immoral, could be considered in utilitarianism act as moral or immoral, depending on whether they cause a greater increase for the good of all in the particular situation. Central to the idea of ​​utilitarianism must be considered the possibility of deducing the total equity, as a subsidiary principle of happiness as the moral principle of greater generality. The triad of basic moral principles of classical utilitarianism are: the benefits, happiness and hedonism (pleasure). Maximizing the benefits acts as a guiding principle, happiness is the content and meaning of utility, happiness, in turn, is meant mainly as a treat. It thus comes to the pleasures of any and all members of society, who should be considered impartial and public benefit is no more than the sum of all pleasures. The last fair equality can be considered as the fourth basic principle of utilitarianism.
In the second Hypothetical utilitarianism justifies killing one student to save others. From the standpoint of utilitarianism, morally justifiable way to completely clear. If students kill one but get food, then at least one lucky person will be returned home and may live a long and prosperous life. If we abandon the assassination, then die all students and grief overwhelm many families. Therefore, we need to kill a student to save the lives of others. In utilitarianism do not need to calculate the consequences of the individual actions should be guided by one common principle: the leadership those rules, which lead to an increase in happiness. Sure, many of us horrified assumption that this situation is allowed to kill one person to save others. We feel that killed a student would be the victim of a terrible injustice had been killed in order to be able to use it as a food. That is why utilitarianism faces very serious counterexamples. Here is one of them. From the point of view of morality, take the life of a student, even in the name of saving other lives would be immoral. But then it follows that utilitarianism identifies morality with an increase in happiness, wrong. If we reject utilitarianism, that we can not justify killing one student.
Benefit is always relative and conditional. Therefore, any relative benefit is not unconditional, and therefore use can not be the ultimate goal of man, as it recognizes the need to utilitarianism. Utilitarianism most insisted on the usefulness of things, respectively persons and circumstances, "useful" or "fit" is good for the person to whom it is useful, well where it is good. Therefore, in the third Hypothetical the man should break the store and gets medicine for his wife. The benefit depends on the use we make of it. All the action is good when are good. In this case, the theft from the shop is good because it is done for the salvation of man. From the standpoint of utilitarianism laws must be obeyed, because the laws (and they will obey, because disobedience will result in punishment), not only must obey in order to avoid the disaster that we see in this case.
Utilitarianism asserts that the right actions - the ones that bring the most benefit. In the fourth Hypothetical greatest benefit will be achieved if the uncle dies and his money will go to 10 children that is the benefit will be available to ten people and not just one person and it will make society happier for the killing is justified. The best society is one in which the greatest amount of happiness is achieved. It is also a necessary part of utilitarianism is the claim that only the results matter. In other words, in order to determine what action would be the best, we must ask ourselves: what was the result?
The state system of laws and better contribute to the achievement of happiness, than the absence of law and State ("natural state"). While on the other hand it violates the fundamental principle of our law, which prohibits the killing or any actions that lead to death, even if they were caused by well-intentioned. Second, the example of the murder of his uncle reminds us - or should recall - that every person has a moral right, the most important of which is the right to life. In the case of disconnection from medical devices utilitarianism requires us to neglect the right to life of the patient's uncle. But this is obviously immoral. If there are two human beings, one can not deny that they both have the same rights. If they both have rights, we have to respect the two most important rights - the right to life and the right to justice. I think that in this case it is necessary to clarify that the plans of uncle, if his death will be natural that no ethical conflicts and will not have to wait for a relative of his death.
For utilitarianism as a social and moral pattern, characterized by an understanding of the proper and correct behavior that results in a particular situation to the greatest benefit not so much for other people as primarily for the most active person. In the fifth Hypothetical need to uncover the secret of a friend because it threatens life and human life above all else. Utilitarianism is always based on the interests of the individual. Since there is no objective methods for determining what is best for the individual, and what is worse, each individual is able to understand himself what is right and what is wrong, based on their personal preferences. In this case, the disclosure of the secrets of another person would be justified. You can not condemn a man to death on the basis of only the consideration that a violation of the oath complicate life and the person will be difficult to live after the betrayal. Anyone who believes that the "right to life" no exceptions, can not reason otherwise.