Arguments Against Utilitarianism

It is not always permissible to harm a smaller number of people to prevent harm to a large number of people. There are many different scenarios that can be used to provided evidence as to why the answer could be yes or no. I justify my answer with ethical logic and emotional appeal. If I am driving in a car and my brakes won’t work and I am about to hit a minivan full of 12 people. I can choose to hit the van or swerve and hit and kill a mother and her newborn child on the sidewalk. I’m going to hit the van, the mother and child weren’t in harm's way. I didn’t choose to hit the van, my brakes were not working but if i killed the mother and her child, I choose to take their lives. The right thing to is to kill the worker, in the scenario of you are driving through a narrow tunnel and a worker falls onto the road in front of you. There is not enough time for you to stop. If you keep straight, you will hit the worker and kill him, but if you swerve left into oncoming traffic, you will collide with a school bus and kill at least five children. As previously stated the choice to commit first-degree murder is something that could’ve been prevented. That would be choosing the children over the worker, whom I couldn’t prevent from falling. In this case utilitarianism does have the answer because killing the worker …show more content…
There are many reasons why the torture shouldn’t be legal. For example, what if the suspected bomber, isn’t the mastermind behind the whole plan. If the person tries to tell the police that, they obviously won’t believe the person and torture them worse. Another reason why it shouldn’t be legal is, what if the suspected bomber decides to not tell the police anything. If the suspected bomber is willing to die to make sure the plan is accomplished, then not only did the police kill someone, they also wasted time that could’ve been spent searching for the