According to the principles of utilitarianism, the basic tenet that makes an action morally ethical is that it creates happiness not only in the doer of the action but also in all the people involved or affected by the action. In the case study above, being caught up in a debt of $100,000 and seeking to take advantage of my cousin who has just won a bit time lottery jackpot by asking for money and promising to pay it back with no intention of paying it back is in itself unethical and morally misguided. Although such an action will create pleasure or happiness between me and my spouse, it leaves out my cousin who is also part of the agreement and he will sooner or later realize that I made a false promise and sought to take advantage of this promissory and this will make him lose trust in our future engagement. As a standard of consequentialism, utilitarianism adheres to the fundamental principle that the outcome of an action is the only paradigm that can be used to measure morality.
As Jeremy Betham posits, a moral action ought to be done because it is at least not wrong. However, in the given case study, the doer has the option of keeping his promise and not taking advantage of the cousin because this is the moral thing to do. Whereas I have the option of keeping the money and failing to fulfill my promissory in the hope that my cousin will forgive my debt due to our close relation the ultimate right and moral thing to do it to pay it back. Such an action assumes that the cousin does not have a right to ask for his money back since we are related. Whereas Stuart Mill’s interpretation of morality is founded on the action’s veracity or translation to happiness and the opposite of happiness, his definition remains silent about what the opposite of happiness is and this is the very foundation upon which this case study is formed. Although hedonism seeks to insinuate that morality is entirely upon an individual’s state of the mind, the reality of the matter is that even though the cousin has won more money than he needs, it is right for him to decide how and when to spend his money.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to Hobbe’s moral standards, adhering to any form of chaotic government is better than remaining caught in a state of war. He further posits that nature is continually in a state of war. The state of nature is essentially fraught with a constant state of struggle. The fact that humans have a right to all things means that there will always be conflict regarding the scarcity of resources. However, this principle does not tie humans to the need for conflict in order to earn what is rightfully theirs. In fact, it says that natural laws do not permit individuals to challenge the sovereign. In deciding to keep the money, I will be going against the laws of nature that postulate and stress the need to keep promises whenever you make them and that further stresses the respect for other people’s property.
Overall, according to my observation of the matter, it remains wrong in all moral and ethical forms and beats logic. The matter remains illegality in more than one form. First, it is wrong and morally absurd to borrow money knowing that your lender has won a lottery and hence has too much money. Second, it is unfortunate to take advantage of family relations to ask for extremely high amounts of money and finally it is wrong to make promises with no intention of keeping them. Such actions are vile are disrespectful and lead to the breakage of trust.
