While the principle of utilitarianism is based on a rather simple concept; promoting happiness instead of promoting suffering, it remains a radical idea (Rachels and Stuart 99). There is a difference between the stuff that is good and those actions that are right. According to utilitarianism, for an action to be considered as right it must be good. That is, the action must be done for the greater good. It must have the ability to bring happiness to a greater number than it brings suffering to (Rachels and Stuart 111). Morality according to the utilitarianism is majorly defined by the pleasure and consequences an action is characterized. If an action brings more pleasure to a greater number of people that it present suffering then, it is considered morality right. On the other hand, actions that bring more suffering to a greater number of people than it brings happiness are considered morally wrong (Rachels and Stuart 112).
Utilitarianism opposes the laws against euthanasia since they are unjustified restrictions on the ability of people to take control of their lives (Rachels and Stuart 102). It urges that action should be considered either moral or otherwise based on the amount of happiness or suffering it grants the largest number of people in society. The use of marijuana is considered morally wrong based on simple facts. Utilitarianism analyses the events surrounding the use of marijuana. Does the drug use increase or decrease happiness? If it does then the drug use according to utilitarian is morally right (Rachels and Stuart 102).
Morality according to Christians is based on the fact that human beings are made in the image of God. Among the animals on the surface of the earth, only human beings have souls. As a consequence, it is morally right to treat the animals the way they want (Rachels and Stuart 105). Does it mean that human beings should mistreat animals based on the fact that they do not have souls? The utilitarian principle would answer this question based on the happiness and suffering associated with the general good.
Works Cited
Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. "The elements of moral philosophy." (1993). Pg 98-124
