ETHC 445 Week 5 Discussion

ETHC 445 Week 5 Discussion | Devry University

Week 5: Utilitarianism

There are three basic propositions in standard Utilitarianism (Please be sure to listen to Mill's audio lecture before joining this threaded discussion):

1.    Actions are judged right and wrong solely on their consequences; that is, nothing else matters except the consequence, and right actions are simply those with the best consequences.

2.    To assess consequences, the only thing that matters is the amount of happiness and unhappiness caused; that is, there is only one criterion and everything else is irrelevant.

3.    In calculating happiness and unhappiness caused, nobody’s happiness counts any more than anybody else’s; that is, everybody’s welfare is equally important and the majority rules.

In specific cases where justice and utility are in conflict, it may seem expedient to serve the greater happiness through quick action that overrules consideration for justice. There is a side to happiness that can call for rushed decisions and actions that put decision-makers under the pressure of expediency.

Here is a dilemma for our class:

You are the elected district attorney. You receive a phone call from a nursing home administrator who was a good friend of yours in college. She has a waiting list of 3,000 people who will die if they don't get into her nursing home facility within the next 3 weeks, and she currently has 400 patients who have asked (or their families have asked on their behalf) for the famous Dr. Jack Kevorkian's (fictitious) sister, Dr. Jill Kevorkian, for assistance in helping them die. The 3,000 people on the waiting list want to live. She (the nursing home administrator) wants to know if you would agree to "look the other way" if she let in Dr. Jill to assist in the suicide of the 400 patients who have requested it, thus allowing at least 400 of the 3,000 on the waiting list in.

FIRST LEAD DISCUSSION QUESTION

Use "Utilitarianism" to determine what should be your decision of what to do faced with the choice raised by this scenario.

FIRST LEAD DISCUSSION LEARNING POINTS:

Utilitarianism judges the act by its consequences according to the principle of the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people, or least amount of pain, with all individual's happiness or pain considered equal.

The scenario involves choosing whether to break the law to allow voluntary “suicide” by 400 people to allow 400 others to get into a nursing home to live, at least presumably, live longer.  

The main issue is how to assess the benefit/pain of each option, to allow or not allow.  What are the benefits/detriments of breaking the law?  Of not allowing 400 people to live longer? 

And how are the 400 to be chosen?  How do you assess which of the lives on the waiting list are more beneficial, or less painful/detrimental to save? 

Would Rule Determinism help?  Is the rule being established, to allow breaking the law to save lives to bring more or less benefit in the long run?  Allowing it here would create precedent for allowing it in other situations, or can such be limited to only when life is at issue?  A lot of lives?  The lives of important persons?  And how is that determined? 

SECOND LEAD DISCUSSION QUESTION

Do you find that any of the critiques of "Utilitarianism" apply here?  Which? Explain. Be sure to review and incorporate if relevant the critiques raised in Chapter 8 and those referenced in the assigned videos.

SECOND LEAD DISCUSSION LEARNING POINTS:

Focusing on consequences, weighing them can lead to a result that instinctively one would consider wrong no matter what or how great the benefit, such as in one of the videos, throwing an innocent person off the bridge to save those on the runaway train.   Or such as having Mr Jones wait until the world cup soccer game is finished before he can be rescued by shutting off the transmitter.  

Rule Utilitarianism in contrast to Act Utilitarianism attempts to deal with this issue by looking at the longer term effect of the act’s consequences in terms of the precedential rule or principle it establishes rather than the immediate consequences as does Act Utilitarianism.  What would be the effects of such a precedent/rule that allows taking an innocent human life for organ transplants?  Would the detrimental /long term effects outweigh the short term benefits? 

Remember also that Utilitarianism weighs everyone’s happiness/pain as the same.  But is this accurate in reality?   Is everyone’s pain/happiness necessarily the same?  Is this even more apparent when weighing the value of lives? Are different person’s lives of different value? 

And as one of the videos pointed out,  a mathematical equation can lead to instinctively unacceptable results – ie letting Mr Jones suffer physical pain so thousands of soccer fans do not get frustrated by missing the game if the transmitter had to shut down for awhile.

Even if one assumes such equality of happiness/pain,   the determination of the benefit or detriment of consequences requires in depth analysis, short term vs long term concerns, financial, emotional, psychological, physical, and precedent. 

Of significant importance,  such assessments are ultimately uncertain, only a best guess.   Humans do not act as expected, nor do events occur as anticipated.