Moral Theories: Utilitarianism and James Rachel's Idea

Part 1: Utilitarianism 

Overview of Moral Standards and Moral Judgments 

In its simplest form, utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach moral theory that argues that right and wrong can be determined based on the outcomes of the decision in terms of whether they bring pleasure to those affected by the decision. Utilitarianism is specifically not about the end justifying the means as the focus is purely on the end and never about the means. When a decision is to be made about an action, the decision-maker has to focus on the outcome and determine how it will affect the people involved. If the outcome affects them positively then the decision is morally right and if the contrary is true then the decision is morally wrong. It is important to note that a decision may not necessarily have a positive effect on all the people involved. In that case, therefore, then a decision is morally right if it has a net positive outcome for more people than it has a net negative outcome. A fundamental aspect of the utilitarianism approach is the entire absence of the concept of a higher being or religious consideration. Under the instant theory, the only consideration is for human beings and for the present. The concept of God, faith, or sin does not come about. 

Main Proponents 

The basic idea behind the moral theory of utilitarianism can be traced to David Hume but it is Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills who advanced Hume’s ideas into a moral theory. For background, the theory was predicated on a world that had been immersed in one crisis after the other and seeds of hope were being sown. Notable examples of crisis included the bloody French Revolution as well as the Napoleonic era on the one hand and the vagaries of slavery on the other including the American civil war. The ray of hope was in the form of the USA, a nascent nation that, through the making of rational decisions was fast rising into a global power. Bentham looked at the decisions that had been made and their outcomes and realized that intentions did not matter as it was all about the outcomes. He developed Hume’s ideas into a theory that focused morality not on faith but rather on seeking to create positive outcomes for as much of the population as possible. Mills, the son of one of Bentham’s friends then expanded the ideas into the current version of utilitarianism. 

Major Arguments Used to Support the Theory 

Utilitarianism is predicated on a simple and easy to defend primary argument that humans should always seek to alleviate suffering and foster happiness. The primary basis for utilitarianism is to attain this happiness by ensuring that all decisions made bring as little suffering as possible to people while contemporaneously creating as much happiness as possible. Many of the prevalent moral theories place to focus on other things other than humans, in most cases to the detriment of humans. For example, some focus on the law while others focus on religion and deities. Doing what is best for humanity is the basis of utilitarianism. 

Pro Et Contra 

The main strength of utilitarianism is the lack of systems, rules, and regulations that are cast on stone, hence creating an opportunity for every situation to be judged on its own merits. Systems, rules, and regulations create generalization and prejudices which sow seed for error. The primary weakness for utilitarianism can be realized from Kant’s ethics where no human can be treated as a means to an end as all humans are an end in themselves. Under Kant’s theory, everyone counts but as per utilitarianism, only the majority counts hence creating ease for the minority to be victimized. The lack of focus on neither laws nor deities has also been criticized. 

Part II: Rachels’ Idea of Moral Theory 

James Rachels’ idea of the right moral theory is on the one part based on the concept of the minimum conception of morality and on the other seemingly on the biblical concept of treating others as one would like to be treated. Minimum conception of morality takes a deontological approach to morality by placing some yardsticks on what can be moral and what cannot be moral from a general perspective. Under this concept, even in the most extreme of circumstances, there are lines that human being should never cross. The lines should be based on a concept of reasonableness which can be defined as the line between right and wrong for any reasonable person. According to Rachels, when the line of reasonableness is crossed, there is a possibility of creating a slippery slope scenario where eventually, humans would begin to act like animals. For example, supporting euthanasia may eventually lead to a situation where those who are disabled are killed because life is hard for them. 

When it comes to the preferable kind of moral theory, Rachels does not expressly select an ideal theory but rather lay down some fundamental rules that should be followed in picking the right moral theory. The first rule is the elimination of hubris which can be defined as the excesses of personal pride. A good moral theory is the one where the decision-maker does not stand on a pedestal and play God by determining the fates of other human beings. Rachels also places a lot of focus on justice and fairness based on the ideal that all human beings are equal. It is the combination of the above that bring to the fore the biblical idea of doing to others as one would expect them to do unto the doer. A good moral theory should thus consider all humans as an end in themselves and never sacrifice one human for another. 

Part III: Comparison and Contrast of Moral Viewpoints 

Rachels’ idea of an ideal moral theory contrasts more with utilitarianism than it agrees with it. Beginning with the agreeable part, Rachels’ idea does agree with utilitarianism when it comes to the reduction of suffering and the augmentation of happiness. For example, the donation of organs is a good thing as it reduces the suffering of patients and also because it increases the quality of life of the recipient. However, the difference in this example comes in when the organ donation is undertaken at the expense of the donor. Under utilitarianism, the donation is in order as long as the donor can make better use of the organ. Further, under utilitarianism, no matter how much suffering the donor undergoes, as long the pleasure that the recipients get is greater than the suffering then the act is morally right. 

To some extent, Rachels’ concept can only be considered as a full frontal attack on the concept of utilitarianism. For a start, hubris is an essential aspect of utilitarianism as someone has to determine whose suffering is subordinate to whose pleasure. When a close decision has to be made between issues involving two sets of human beings, a decision-maker who, in a manner of speaking plays God must make a determination. On the other hand, utilitarianism cannot function as long as everyone is considered equal and treated as such. Being fair to all is against the tenets of utilitarianism. Finally, the nature of the minimum conception of morality requires in the very least that there be some basic rules that cannot be changed which is contrary to utilitarianism. Under utilitarianism, every situation must be assessed based on its own merits, hence basic rules of engagement and a minimum level of morality cannot apply. Utilitarianism is all about doing everything necessary to maximize utility. 

Part IV: Reflection: Personal Ethical Viewpoint 

My personal moral and ethical viewpoint borrows heavily from utilitarianism as expanded by John Stuart Mills but goes to relatively high levels of extremes. It is my belief, as supported by sound science that human beings evolved from a more basic form of life just as the rest of flora and fauna did. Almost all animals apply a form of utilitarianism referred to by historians as survival for the fittest. Unfortunately, humans developed a set of rules and regulations in the name of social cohesion and civilization. The rules have made the world seem better but definitely much worse. For example, in the current world, a few hundred people own as much wealth as billions of people in the world. Similarly, the amount of food wasted by the affluent is enough to end hunger in the whole world. My idea of morality dictates that a person should not starve while there is food in sight just because it belongs who someone who in any event has more than enough. If I was to give a title to my moral theory, I would call it survival for the fittest and under it, anyone who has obscenely more than enough should be liable to lose it. 

The primary strength of my survival for the fittest moral theory is that it would result in actual equity, equality, and morality. A world where billionaires only give to the poor and in turn get tax cuts for it is as immoral as can be. Further, there is no moral justification for a single person making as much as in a day as hundreds of millions of other people who are working equally hard. The main weakness of my moral theory is that it would be hard for it to gain acceptance or even implement.