The principle of utility

at
Categories
Tags

 

The principle of utility involves maximizing happiness as a desirable outcome of decisions. Although it does not get directly said, there is an inverse intention to minimize the undesirable outcome of disaster. Utilitarian decisions are directed toward outcomes—that is, the consequences of decisions.

We need to look at results. We first look at the actual results of an action. We judge if it was the best possible result. We can judge the actual results in comparison to other results that reasonably could be said to have been possible.

If we do not yet have the actual results of an action, we do not know if it is moral or not. We can talk hypothetically about what might happen, and then what that would show about the morality of an action. However, if we do not know what the action had as its consequences, we cannot yet say if it is moral or not.

For the initial post of this week’s discussion respond to one of the following options, and label the beginning of your post indicating either Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3:

Option 1: You are a nurse on a floor with only elderly patients. Every day, each patient tells you about how much pain they are in and asks you to help them. They want you to inject them with something to end their lives. If the patients die, the beds on that floor would be freed up for other patients. The hospital is at 100 percent capacity. There is no other hospital for 30 miles. Other patients may be not receiving care due to a lack of free beds. What is the moral thing to do here? Why is that the moral thing to do? What would an utilitarian say is the moral thing to do? Why would they say that? Compare and contrast the utilitarian approach with that of an ethical egoist or social contact theorist

Option 2: A new social media app is offering itself to you for free. If you upload a picture to it, the app will show how you will look at 10 years. John Doe, a friend of yours, says not to use the app as it will then possess your biometric facial data. Jane Doe, another friend of yours, says that she heard the app shares the facial data with a security firm that helps the government detect terrorists at airports. Should you use this app? Why or why not? If John Doe is right, would an utilitarian say it is right to use the app? Why or why not? If Jane Doe is right, would a social contract theorists say it is right to use the app? Consider the role the Fourth Amendment at play here.

Option 3: You are a nursing student at the XYZ College. It has a 50 percent acceptance rate (half the applicants do not get in). XYZ is a public college. XYZ has decided to implement an affirmative action policy. The college has few students over the age of 50. To encourage more students of that age, every student 50 or older will receive a bonus point. A student’s admission is dependent on having 11 points. One earns points for a GPA above a certain score, ACT/SAT score above a certain number, having a letter of recommendation, etc. XYZ also lacks LGBT students, Muslim, and African-American students and is considering offering a bonus point for any student fitting those categories. What is the key moral conflict for XYZ? What social values should XYZ promote here? What diverse populations are involved here, and what are their interests? Do you think XYZ’s social action is the correct solution to lack of diversity? Why or why not? Factor the ethics of egoism and utilitarianism into your answer.

Sample Solution

The “principle of utility” is the principle that actions are to be judged by their usefulness in this sense: their tendency to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness. As a nurse tending to the elderly patients, they may want you to inject them with something to end their lives. The moral thing to do in this situation is to not inject the patients with anything to end their lives as it goes against ethical standards. This notion is based on the principle of non-maleficence, which demands that no harm should be done (Myers 2019). It also adheres to the Hippocratic Oath where one pledges to “do no harm” when caring for patients. An utilitarian would argue that due to the limited bed spaces available and need for other individuals who may require care, allowing these elderly patients take end their own lives is an option worth considering in order provide relief from overcrowding and help distribute resources more equally throughout society (Miller & Williams 2018).

However, in line with Sartori’s (1970) assertion that “the rules for climbing and descending along a ladder of abstraction are thus very simple rules ….We make a concept more abstract and more general by lessening its properties or attributes …” (p. 1041), the definition by the trio, may have lost one of the core ingredients of terrorism – the psychological impact. The trio had, however, explained that the reduction in salience accorded the psychology element, is not unconnected to the temporal differences from Schmid’s study. They also suggested that the writers of the published articles, which they used for their study may have adopted definitions that reflected the expressions of fourth wave terrorism, as opposed to third wave terrorism, which was in operation during Schmid’s study.

Furthermore, the authors had also noted that the country of origin of journal contributors also played a role in their choice of definition elements. For example, an examination of the “civilian” and “fear” definitional elements by authors from Middle East (ME), Western Europe (WE) and North America (NA) showed marked differences. While experts from the ME had a 0% civilian component, 50% included fear in their definitions. Contrarily, WE and NA authors had a 40% and 20% civilian element and 20% and 17% highlighted the fear component respectively. This to some extent confirms Drake’s (1989) assertion regarding the nature of the definition of terrorism, when he argued that no singular definition can sufficiently capture the meaning of the word. Thus, the word is open to the subjective interpretations of speakers depending on their cultural, political or social leaning (p. xiv).

Richard (2014) study approached terrorism as a mode of violence, appropriated by different groups, states, and ideologies. His definition of terrorism is a product of three key assumptions:

a. No act of violence “is in and of itself inherently terrorist” (p. 222).

According to the author, terrorist’s events are products of a host of violence-based techniques such as bombing, kidnapping for ransom, theft, hostage taking, and more. These approaches are not unique to terrorist organisations, but are also employed by different groups, from social movements to ‘legitimate’ states. However, the techniques adopted become terrorist, only when layers of meaning are applied.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer