Utilitarianism
Utilitarians surmise that the right decision is what achieves the future situation with the best net advantage and/or the slightest net damage. Putting aside the understood and right up 'til today endless troubles utilitarians face in recognizing and characterizing (and afterward adjusting) dubious "advantages" and "damages," Miller declares that utilitarians would support same-sex marriage in light of the fact that the "immediate advantages" to same-sex couples of being qualified to wed clearly exceed the main "backhanded damages" that "a few individuals" may encounter from having their origination of marriage "hurt." Despite the acknowledgment (without explanation) that there are "numerous components to consider," just these
The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.
Utilitarian’s believe that the law, policy, or action has to maximize happiness and satisfaction in order for it to be consider ok. They believe that the happiness and satisfaction has to outweigh the pain and frustration of those against the law, policy, or action. On page 84 of Wenz’s political philosophies in moral conflict textbook he explains Jeremy Bentham’s hedonistic calculus. The book explains how the units of happiness have to exceed the amount of units of pain. In the view of gay marriage Utilitarian’s would say that it is ok as long as the happiness and satisfaction outweighs the pain and frustration. On the other hand though if the pain and frustration outweighs the happiness and satisfaction than gay marriage wouldn’t be ok.
In early times, same-sex marriage was not considered taboo and in many cultures, it was encouraged. Random History (2011) explains that in the early civilizations of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt, the kingdom recognized the union between couples of the same-sex. During Greek’s early years, attraction between a man and another man was normal and was considered an expression of love. “The main considerations in same-sex relationships in early history were often love, beauty, and excellence of character rather than gender” (Random History, 2011, p.1). Same-sex marriages were often believed to be more pure than a heterosexual marriage. Marriage was believed to be the union of two people based on love. A marriage consisting of two males or two females, if women had the right to get married, was not frowned upon.
Lately there has been a great deal of discussion over legalising same sex marriage. To some people; there is no problem with it. However this is a controversial matter and there is still a great deal of debate ongoing in some countries, including this one, whether homosexual couples should continue to be denied the rights that straight couples enjoy. There is no reason why homosexuals relationships should be differentiated in any way from heterosexual ones. Homosexuality isn 't a choice. Any intolerance in our society concerning something someone cannot control, where no harm is caused, is not only ludicrous but also a form of discrimination. There is
According to the text book Some opponents of gay marriage will claim that sexuality is a matter of choice and that individuals Simply ought to choose traditional heterosexual relationships. Some proponents of Gay marriage will claim that individuals should be free to choose to marry whomever they want. Other defenders of gay marriage will argue that since homosexual attraction is not a matter of choice but, rather, a natural disposition over which individuals have no control, homosexuals should be free to engage in relationships that are natural and rewarding for them. From a consequentialist point of view, there is nothing in the nature of sex itself that requires that it be heterosexual or for reproductive purposes. In this view, the sexual
There are roughly 313,900,000 people living in the United States and within those people roughly 9,000,000 people categorize as either lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (gates). This statistic was calculated throughout many surveys issued in 2010 throughout all states in the United States. These statistics were presented in an article written by Gary J. Gates in April of 2011. Now that it is currently almost the year 2014 the number of homosexuals have only risen in the past few years due to the legalization of same sex marriage throughout some states. Same sex marriage is becoming a well-known controversy in the United States due to complete opposite opinions. Society often examines the changes throughout the years in terms of consequences rather than in benefits. The legalization of same sex marriage is often portrayed as consequential to society however when examined more closely there would be more benefits to society if this controversy was viewed in terms of positive change. Benefits society could achieve from legalization of same sex marriage are providing new economic and business opportunities, and encouraging equal opportunity and a non-discriminatory society.
Although many conservatives were and are still opposed to same-sex marriages, the struggle for marriage equality in America focuses on the right to marry. The United States Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed the fundamental right to marry by the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, legalizing same-sex marriages would be good for America as it would spur equality, promote family stability and validate LGBT family units as well as increase the number of children successfully adopted.
Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.
First let us further examine what is defined as utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that ever act should comply with the “principle of utility.” It points out what we ought to do and what we shall do. It also, pushes for the most pleasure, with the least pain, for the majority of people involved. Why do people make certain choices? Utilitarianism states that we are now slaves to pain and pleasure and knowing the balance between the two will assist in knowing what choices others will make. While with a utilitarian mindset, making moral decisions based on God- given rights are no longer as important as decisions based
Utilitarianism argues that what matters are not the actions itself but the consequences or outcomes of those actions. It claims that right or wrong actions could be separated by focusing on the consequences of those actions. Furthermore, utilitarianism believes that even though motives may cause actions, but consequences are resulted from actions. Therefore, whether the motive behind the action was a self-serving one or a genuine care for somebody else, it does not really matter. Utilitarianism teaches people to focus on maximizing happiness and produce least harm above everything else. Therefore, as long as the outcome is achieved, it allows people to disregard some moral rules. Judgment in utilitarianism is based on a cost
Utilitarianism is a moral theory developed and expanded upon by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. According to John Stuart Mill, utilitarianism is the “creed which accepts as the foundations of morals, utility, or the greatest-happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, Utilitarianism) As mentioned above, the main tenet of utilitarianism is based upon the notion that no moral decision is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, whether a decision is right or wrong is dependent on overall utility produced as a result of making a decision. Utility produced can be defined as health, pleasure, happiness, satisfaction, and/or happiness. Some strengths of utilitarianism is as follows. One, the ethical theory is based on the straightforward principle of minimizing pain and suffering and maximizing pleasure and happiness. Utilitarianism is attractive to the individual and society, because it seeks decisionmaking that contributes to a happy life. Two, utilitarianism is egalitarian and it allows all individuals the power to make their own decisions. Third, in utilitarianism value extends beyond humans and includes other species. Utilitarianism also contains a number of weaknesses. One, utilitarianism de-prioritizes the right of the individual. In the pure pursuit of pleasure, utilitarianism will exploit individuals and
On June 26, 2015, it was ruled by the the US Supreme Court that the US Constitution will guarantee that same-sex couples have the right to marriage in all 50 states of the US (state by state, n.d.). By many, this was celebrated as a victory. A Victory in the sense of equality, rights, and love. By others, this was seen as an immoral setback. I come to wonder who is right. Is there a right side? I know that there is a side who is for same-sex marriage and there is a side of those who oppose it. However, I know that the Christian faith tends to side with the opponents. I am a Christian; does that mean I am to be an opponent?
I strongly agree with the legalization of the gay marriages in many of the societies even though it is a subject that elicits mixed reactions and opposition from some quarters. The utilitarianism approach that seeks to establish whether the end justifies the means can be applied whereby the benefits of such legalization and the disadvantages are compared. When gay marriages are legalized, the beneficiaries will include the gays, adopted children and the society as a whole. Opponents such include religion, which argues that marriage is a sacred institution to be shared between a man and woman and that marriage, should serve a higher purpose of reproduction. However, the opponents would not suffer in effect since they only claim
Sam Schulman’s “The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage” presents an interesting argument against gay marriage that hinges upon maintaining a traditional form of marriage. He actually claims that gay marriage is “unnecessary”(381). According to Schulman, there are 4 primary effects of marriage within his definition he calls the kinship system. First, marriage protects and controls a woman’s sexuality. Second, the possible pairings are limited by the kinship system to avoid incest or other taboos. Third, marriage creates a situation where licit sex can occur. Fourth, it places a clear divide between childhood innocence and adult, married, life. All of which is in addition to maintaining a standard family hierarchy, in which a marriage almost
In this year, a news spreads widely among American Chinese. A 22-year-old Chinese young man ended his life in Coronado Bridge, San Diego. After his car crashed on the railings, he jumped from the bridge into the sea and died. He came from a rich family in China and just got his bachelor degree in June. It seemed like he would have a bright future. Why he ended his life so young? The details about this news are eye-catching and startling: the boy had carried HIV since he was 16 years old; he had an old American white husband around sixty years old; he had been suffering from serious depression; he was the only-child of his parents. Someone guess the main reason that led him to commit suicide is that he was the only child of his parents and his parents gave him much pressure for his sex orientation. Same-sex husband, HIV, depression and broken relationship, all of these intertwined words convey some serious problems. Since American Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage legal in all 50 States in 2015, this news reminds the public once again that marriage had been redefined in America and the damaging consequences are coming. Since the true understanding of marriage is lost, there will be consequences for children, for families, and ultimately for the whole society.This paper tries to defend traditional marriage and oppose same-sex marriage. Marriage is God instituted and designed and