Utilitarianism incorporates the principle of impartiality in that it suggests that in the process of taking action considered morally upright, it should take into consideration everyone’s concern and not be merely just for one own happiness (Barrow, 2015).
The difference on Bentham and Mill’s perception of happiness is the nature of happiness to be quantified. Bentham’s view was that the different natures of pleasure in people could only be differentiated qualitatively but not quantitatively while Mill held the view that happiness could be differentiated as being better than others (Barrow, 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The difference between act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism is the outcome of an action. Act-utilitarianism views an action as ethical if its results yield the highest good for the maximum amount of individuals, while rule-utilitarianism argues that for an action to be considered moral, it is contingent to the rightness of the rules that consent it to realize the utmost good (Mulgan, 2015).
The difference in how act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism view rules is that act utilitarianism trust that it is okay to halt a rule to achieve a greater good, but rule-utilitarianism argues that rules must be adhered to in every action (Mulgan, 2015).
No, act-utilitarianism is not dependable on our deliberated moral judgments because sometimes the action is taken may be unfair biased and the constitutional rights shortchanged (Barrow, 2015).
In my opinion, Mill may have insinuated that knowledge permits one to settle in various situations theoretically and a deficiency of understanding limits this likelihood (Mulgan, 2015). He meant that no rational individual would want to give up on rationality in the name of being contented.
Mill tries to justify his hierarchical ranking of pleasures by urging that the variance is in quality. He suggested that it is scaled regarding likings of all and that certain choices are so favored that a significant extent of distress is endured for their sake (Mulgan, 2015).
No, it is because the “no-rest problem” obligates one being ready to accomplish numerous activities that are ordinarily regarded to be ethically upright even though it is not required (Barrow, 2015). Utilitarianism, on the same note, obligates one to take an action which brings happiness to the greatest number of people in the society.
An act-utilitarian would say an individual ought to be prepared to execute, as one's responsibility, countless activities that are habitually considered supererogatory (Barrow, 2015). They support the idea of taking a course of actions that yield good results even though not morally allowed.
The three truths about morality that utilitarianism seems to embody are; first is that the ethically correct action is the one that capitalizes on collective good. Secondly is that what is moral is the pleasure of specific beings and lastly that happiness entails pleasure and the deficiency of hurt (Mulgan, T2015).
Ethical dilemmas
In many situations in the day to day errands, we are faced with cases that require one to decide . Before taking action whether professionally or socially, we have to consider the impact of the action. In utilitarianism, the key goal is to ensure that the result of an action brings good to a great number of people. In the case of having to choose a dose to a single patient among the dozen patients, it will not be that simple. As a doctor, my obligated call of duty will be to do all I can to save a life. However, the case in question requires that I choose only one patient. The act-utilitarianism permits me to take a decision that will be of great good to a high number of people in the society. In the above case, there is a doctor who has made a significant impact on the people by saving many lives ( Goldman, 2015) . Choosing to save the life of the surgeon might be a better action to take since the doctor will be of great help to the society in the case of living. The choice will, however, mean that I end the lives of the other patients, which morally is not upright.
The rule-utilitarianism stresses on the idea of doing what the law dictates regardless of the number of people that the people that will benefit from the action. This will, therefore, mean that I have to make a choice to save the life according to the law. In an argumentative situation, I would find the rule-utilitarianism a better choice. The rule-utilitarianism upholds the idea of respecting life. It does not quantify which life to be better than the other. It argues that all lives are equal and so they should be treated equally ( Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016) . In the given scenario, it will give a chance to the five patients to make a choice about who can sacrifice their lives for the sake of another. On the patient's part, they might feel respected if given a chance to decide about their life and death. In conclusion, it is very hard to deal with such scenarios. Every decision made will be dependent on some factors, but for my case, I will decide to save the surgeon in the hope that he/she will help other several patients who are sick.
References
Barrow, R. (2015). Utilitarianism: A contemporary statement . Routledge.
Goldman, A. I. (2015). Reliabilism, veritism, and epistemic consequentialism. Episteme , 12 (2), 131-143.
Mandal, J., Ponnambath, D. K., & Parija, S. C. (2016). Utilitarian and deontological ethics in medicine. Tropical parasitology , 6 (1), 5.
Mulgan, T. (2015). Utilitarianism for a broken world. Utilitas , 27 (1), 92-114.
