Ethics Module 2

Two different forms of utilitarianism are described in our text. The first is called act utilitarianism. According to Shaw and Barry, act utilitarianism states that we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected (p.60).

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

The action that leads to the greatest net outcome of utility is then considered to be the correct choice. According to this theory, Alistair should choose the action that will maximise happiness and minimise unhappiness.

The veil allows for equality and ensures that no advantaged nor disadvantaged individual will be swayed to decide a certain way on a principle due to their natural and social biases in society. One example given in Rawls’ work deals with two men; one man is wealthy while the other man is poor. As the topic of tax and reform comes up, the wealthy man pleads his case and denounces the tax and welfare system that was in place solely because he did not want his riches taken from him. On the other hand, the poor man pleaded his side of the discussion, fully supporting the tax and welfare system in place, stating that the system is completely just and necessary, therefore causing a split conclusion on the principle due to differences in characteristic bias. Therefore, to solve this difference, Rawls created the notion of the veil of ignorance which gives neither the wealthy man nor the poor man prior knowledge to their financial status (or any other natural/social statuses) allowing the overall greater equality for society to be exposed.

Utilitarianism also known as the principle of utility is an ethical theory proposed by early philosophers. This theory implies that actions are only judged by its consequences whether they are good or bad. One should perform a particular action because it will yield the best results for all. This approach also analysis the cost and benefit relationship. The downfall with this theory is that not everyone benefits (Fremgen, 2016).

1. Shaw and Barry distinguish two different forms of utilitarianism. What are these two forms. Briefly describe each and use examples.

Rawls theory of justice is a modern alternative to utilitarianism. He believes that justice must be given on the ground of fairness and moral equality of persons. (Shaw, 2016, p.120). His theory comes under social-contract practice. People in the original position choose the basic principles of their society. They should imagine their selves behind the veil of ignorance, means have no information about themselves. He thinks any principle decided under these conditions is considered the principle of justice. (Shaw, 2016,

Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions (Shaw & Barry, 62).

“Rawls argues that people in the original position would agree on two principles as the basic governing principles of their society.” John Rawls, in his “Theory of Justice” sets out principles of Justice in which people would choose to govern their society if located in the “original position.” Under “The Veil of Ignorance,” individuals in the original position are required to be objective and impartial which makes settlements promising.

The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule

“The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation.”. This famous quote by Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the utilitarian approach, sums up the very core of Utilitarian approach. Throughout this article we will dive deeper into the utilitarian approach, weigh its strengths and weaknesses and then put our findings to a practical, real world scenario that Micheal Walzer posses.

What Rawls articulates is that you can only conclude the morality of an exploit or organization or practice if you apply the veil. What this means is that you are required to contemplate the deed, etc. as though you did not know the effect it would have on you. For instance, when you deliberate the ethics of sanctioning gay marriage, you would have to contemplate it not knowing whether you would be a gay individual or one who follows a strict Christian set of principles.

The main goal of the original position is to set up a impartial procedure so that any principle agreed to will be fair and just (Rawls, 1971). In order to create principles that are fair and just, people must “nullify the effects of specific contingencies which put men at odds and tempt them to exploit social and natural circumstances to their own advantage.” (Rawls, 1971, 136) In order to do this effectively, Rawls argues that the parties involved have to be situated behind a veil of ignorance (Rawls, 1971). Without being behind the veil of ignorance, and if “a knowledge of particulars is allowed, then the outcome is biased by arbitrary contingencies.” (Rawls, 1971, 141)

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.

According to the course text, the position of ignorance is one where a person has to completely take away their preconceptions, ideas and other positions that would render their opinion and conclusions biased when asked to make an ethical decision. A prime example used in the text to demonstrate what original position is was the situation of random drug testing of employees. While the position of the employees would naturally be that it is an invasion of a person’s privacy, there are other positions where it would be considered an ethical act. Customers would not wish to have employees on the job, specifically those operating equipment, on drugs that would potentially hurt themselves and others, but employers also have to incur costs of possible injuries and property damage.