Discussion - Utilitarianism | Free Essay Example

Discussion – Utilitarianism

What is the principle of Utilitarianism, and why was it considered so revolutionary at the time?

The principle of utilitarianism is the Principle of Utility, which requires all individuals to maximize happiness or to produce the greatest measure of happiness over unhappiness or pleasure over suffering in any circumstance (Rachels and Rachels 101). This was a new conception of morality in the Industrial Revolution era that was first introduced by Jeremy Bentham (Rachels and Rachels 101), who averred that morality is that which makes the world as happy as possible, not about pleasing God. In addition, the Principle of Utility allows people and even requires them to do what is necessary to bring themselves the greatest happiness (Rachels and Rachels 101). As a result, this notion is considered revolutionary at the time because it is human-centered and excludes God and traditional foundations of morality like religious commandments.

Describe how euthanasia, marijuana, and animal rights would be understood in the context of the utilitarian principle.

Euthanasia is a controversial topic, where some argue that it is wrong, and others support it. For instance, Christians hold that life is a God-given gift and, therefore, only God can decide to end it (Rachels and Rachels 103). As such, because laws are largely influenced by Christianity, euthanasia or mercy-killing is legal in a few countries and in others, it is illegal and considered murder (Rachels and Rachels 104). Nonetheless, the utilitarian principle views euthanasia differently. Consider a scenario where a cancer patient in great pain asks for mercy-killing. In this case, utilitarians would support euthanasia because it would bring the most happiness to the patient as it would end their pain and suffering. Second, they would argue that people should be given the freedom to do what they believe will make them happy, provided they do not harm others. Accordingly, utilitarianism holds that euthanasia should be allowed and legal by law.

For utilitarianism, the morality of the use of marijuana only depends on how the drug affects people’s happiness. Utilitarians would look into the pros and cons of using marijuana as well as the harms and benefits of legalizing it. Notably, marijuana is relaxing and causes enormous pleasure in sensory activities like eating, making this the major benefit because pleasure/happiness is central to utilitarian ethics (Rachels and Rachels 107). Even though marijuana causes paranoia, increased risks of some diseases, less productivity, and fatigue, utilitarians would argue that the benefits outweigh the harms. Besides, marijuana causes pleasure and calmness (not aggression). Also, its legalization would lower incarceration rates resulting from marijuana possession, grow the economy, improve relations between the police and affected minority communities, reduce drug violence, and reduce the abuse of opioids and opioid mortalities (Rachels and Rachels 107-111). Accordingly, utilitarians would support the use and legalization of marijuana because the pros (how the drug might increase happiness) outweigh the cons (how it might decrease happiness).

Regarding the issue of animal rights, utilitarianism challenges the traditional view that nonhuman animals are irrational, cannot speak, and that their interests are not of moral concern. Utilitarians propose that animals matter because, just like humans, they experience happiness and unhappiness. Traditionally, nonhuman animals lacked rights because they were not human. Bentham counters this argument by noting that whether an animal is human or nonhuman is irrelevant, just as it being black or white is irrelevant (Rachels and Rachels 113). The view that animals suffer less just because they are animals is called speciesism, which, in the context of utilitarianism, is discrimination against other animals. From this view, people are given the moral duty to take animals’ suffering into account because both humans and animals are entitled to moral concern (Rachels and Rachels 114).

Describe the classical theory of Utilitarianism. What are some potential problems with the application of the theory?

The classical theory of utilitarianism proposes that the morality of action entirely depends on the action’s consequences, that consequences only matter if they only involve the happiness of individuals, and everyone’s happiness receives equal consideration (Rachels and Rachels 118). Equal consideration implies that no one’s well-being matters more and, morally, everyone counts in the same measure. Nonetheless, this system is associated with several problems. First, the proposition that pleasure/happiness is all that matters is problematic because people appreciate value more compared to pleasure. Second, the point that consequences are all that matter is incorrect when justice and rights are taken into account. For instance, the theory would support a majority of people taking pleasure in abusing one person’s rights because the pleasure of the many outweighs the pleasure of one. However, this would be wrong because it disregards individual rights and goes against the ideals of justice. In addition, the requirement that people should be equally concerned for everyone is too demanding and would prevent people from going on with their personal lives. It would also disrupt people’s relationships because one is required to care for everyone equally, families, strangers, and friends, which seems absurd.

Works Cited

Rachels, James, and Stuart Rachels. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. 9th ed., McGraw Hill Education, 2018.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question