Blog 5 Utilitarianism

By Stanislava Norets

1. There are many theories in ethics, and each of them has its own concept of morality
and moral values. One of the strongest ethical theories is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is one
of the varieties of consequentialism, according to which the moral value of a behavior or deed
is determined by its usefulness. This ethical theory advocates actions that induce happiness or
pleasure and oppose actions that cause harm or pain. In her book "Ethics: The Fundamentals"
Julia Drive, the author talks about the types of consequentialism: ethical egoism and
utilitarianism. However, Chapter 3 is more focused on the concept of utilitarianism, its
values, meaning, and history. Unlike ethical egoism, utilitarianism believes that the scope of
consequences is much wider than ethical egoism states, ethical egoism relies on individual
well-being, utilitarian counts the well-being of all persons involved in moral dilemma.
Further, the author reviews the position of the philosopher Jeremy Bentham who was the first
philosopher to systematically develop the theory called utilitarianism. Bentham believed that
the right moral actions for the individual should be actions that, in balance, bring the greatest
overall pleasure. He thought that some math and scientific precision could be brought into
moral decision-making. The writings of Bentham’s have concentrated on defining
utilitarianism on the principles of utility. Based on his philosophy, there are two kinds of
utility principles: the approach (maximize value and bring as much as possible) and intrinsic
value (the value that people must maximize). Moreover, Bentham gives several rational
parameters for determining pleasure: intensity, duration, certainty, fecundity, purity, extend.
Thus, it turns out that a person makes his choice not only based on the pleasure factor, but
also based on the very parameters of this pleasure. However, it is worth noting that based on
Bentham's hedonism (pleasure-based approach), the philosopher does not justify stupid
actions for pleasure, but evaluate the consequences fully before deciding. Autor also
considers a more advanced version of the position set by Mill. Mill's theory of utilitarianism
addresses several of the problems of Bentham's theory. First, she declares that amenities can
be not only qualified, but also compared with each other. Second, this version of the theory
solves the non-human animal problem by separating higher pleasure from lower pleasure.
Likewise Mills disagreed with Bentham that happiness and pleasure cannot be proven. In
conclusion, the author emphasizes that the classical version of utilitarian theory no longer
widespread, however, theory evolves with the time by developing new sophisticated versions.
At the same time, Joshua Green, in chapter 8 of "Moral Tribes" goes into detail on
utilitarianism and its values. To define the concept of utilitarianism, the author first gives us
some theoretical moral problems to show how the concept of happiness is one of the decisive
factors for decision making. The author says that the basis of answers to moral questions may
be the determining factor if all else is equal, during which we choose more happiness than
less. This factor is influenced by several aspects: how many individuals will be affected, sum
of happiness across the number of individuals . However, the author then asks the question:
does maximizing happiness allow you to do morally wrong things? This is how the author
comes to such a concept as utilitarianism. In further scientific and moral reasoning, the author
defines utilitarianism as "Maximize happiness impartially" where "maximize comes from
human manual mode, "happiness" comes from reflecting on what really matters, and
"impartially" comes from an intellectual recognition of some kind.
After reading all the material on the topic of utilitarianism, I would like to draw my
own small conclusion. From my point of view, the utilitarian approach to suffering and pain
is quite interesting in its concept: qualification, degree and comparison. I cannot say that this
concept sounds new to me, but the very approach in assessing the suffering of both sides of
the moral dilemma, gives more meaning to the moral theory itself. On the other hand, I have
an interesting question, with such a rational approach to making a moral decision, does a
person exalt himself above another (does he not act as such a power that can decide for
himself which outcome of an event will be most appropriate)? I do not believe that we still
have the right to reduce the suffering of our own or other individuals, but on the other hand, it
still seems to me that we do not have the right to decide in which of the outcomes the
suffering will decrease.
2. From my point of view, when making any moral decision, people should think
about the consequences and how their actions will affect the situation or other people.
However, it is very difficult to rationally judge the suffering of others when making
decisions, as people have different perceptions of this or that event. I mean, if we start to be
guided by pure logic and evaluation of the situation, we will still rely on our own perception
of the situation and possible consequences. For example, I will take a situation from my life
to illustrate all of the above. Last semester, students needed to book accommodation on
campus, but a few people were left without housing (lack of places on campus). Therefore, I
and a few other people were on the waiting list, but since I am an international student, I was
given priority. However, there was a situation where the residence office was forced to make
its moral choice. One student (whose family lives in Philadelphia) had an unhealthy
relationship with her family and, due to constant stress at home, she tried to get housing on
campus. Now let's think as a utilitarian, which solution will do more good and which one will
do more harm? On the one hand, I, who do not have a family in the US, and am completely
financially responsible for myself (strong budget restrictions, since there is no parental
sponsorship). If I didn’t get housing on campus, I would be forced to rent housing, for which
I don’t have the budget. In this case, I would have to spend the night with friends or
somewhere on campus in educational buildings. On the other hand, a person whose family
situation has a strong negative impact on mental and physical health, as well as the ability to
learn. And the question is, to whom to give the vacant place on the campus, because the type
of suffering and consequences can be polar different? Logically, of course, we can say that
priority should still be assigned to a foreign student, since we (foreign students) are in fact far
from our homes, families and people who could somehow help us. However, if judged
utilitarianly, giving housing to a student with family problems would do less harm. Why is
that? It's all about perception. For me, this would undoubtedly be a serious problem - losing
my home - but because of my background, I would not have any mental anguish from the
current situation, just another problem in a stack of other more serious problems. In turn, for
that student, the loss of housing meant a constant presence in a depressing and mentally
unhealthy environment, which could lead to more serious problems. That is why, I believe
that people should still be guided by the qualification of suffering, but also do not forget that
the quantitative assessment of suffering is changeable depending on the point of view and
perception of all sides of the situation. (Ultimately, the situation was resolved positively in
both directions, there was enough housing for all).

3. Questions:
1. Utilitarianism is based on choosing more happiness and less harm. However, in Julia
Driver's example (About Sarah Who Saved a Drowning Child), we see that the moral choice
was not made according to the benefit of the consequences of the act of saving. But the
utilitarian theories of Bentham’s do not take into account these psycho-emotional factors
when making decisions. In this case, do you consider the psycho-emotional factor to be
decisive in making moral decisions? Can this factor be included in the concept of
utilitarianism?
2. Utilitarianism is very different from ethical egoism (it takes into account the part of all
stakeholders). However, do you think it is possible to make the right moral choice if you
yourself are an interested party, and not apply ethical egoism? It turns out that when making
a decision (in a decision-making situation where the individual himself is an interested
party), a person should apply the role of a third person and look at the whole situation
hypothetically, but not personally?
3. In the last lesson, we talked about deontology and its concepts where there are moral laws
that cannot be violated regardless of the circumstances. Deontology contrasts strongly with
the values of utilitarianism, where the main goal is to achieve more of the good while
minimizing the bad. In your opinion, which of the two ethical theories has more advantages
over making a moral decision? Can you spot the similarities between ethical egoism and
deontology?

4. This is a rather difficult dilemma presented to us. If we were talking about a

hypothetical person (a friend of a person), then from the point of view of rational logic, we
can conclude that it would be better for this person to die, because this would make the
financial situation of his relatives more profitable. However, in this dilemma, we are talking
about ourselves and reasoning with cold rational logic will not work here. From my point of
view, if I knew that there was no chance of survival (terminal stage) and the end would be the
same only with a delay in time, I would prefer to do euthanasia for several reasons. First, we
take personal suffering as a factor. Living with the idea that the end of life will come at any
moment and very soon is a rather aggravating factor that affects the psycho-emotional state.
Secondly, physical pain, yes, medicine can alleviate suffering, but the pain will still not
disappear anywhere (this also burdens the lives of both a person and his loved ones). In the
third, a feeling of helplessness and burdening other people I love. I know how this would
affect the financial situation of the family and absolute helplessness before the natural factor
would not make life happier. Therefore, from my moral point of view, the more correct
solution for me is the unauthorized termination of life. In this case, you gain control over
your own life, stop your own and other suffering.
 Undoubtedly, my position sounds harsh and cruel, but personally I am guided by logic
and consequences. It can be said that I think about the best result and outcome, no doubt,
because from my point of view, a person is guided by cause and effect.