Utilitarianism and Libertarianism
PO-406-01
Criminal Justice Seminar
Olivia Guiney
February 18th 2016
When I consider Utilitarianism and the principal of utility, I first consider our inherent nature. Our nature and our own fostered environment have us under the governance of “Two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. For pain and pleasure dictates how we live, the decisions we make and the chains of cause and effect. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Sandel, 2007). While determining these factors, problems begin to arise. What is defined as pleasure and what is considered pain? One can argue that pleasure, and a freedom from anything-painful are the only ideals desirable as ends. These aspects are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain (Sandel, 2007). According to the principal of utilitarianism, we should always do whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness or whatever is necessary to prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness (Sandel, 2009). …show more content…
Deciding how and when to prioritize happiness for the greatest number of people can become very controversial. In the criterion of right and wrong, there is always a level of uncertainty and reservation. What is deemed “right” in some eyes is considered so wrong in the eyes of another. How can one determine what is considered as happiness for some, because perhaps this is simply not considered a state of happiness for others? In many aspects, the principal of utility can divide thoughts and prohibit societal success. The principal of utility tells us to do whatever is necessary to minimize pain and unhappiness, but pain and unhappiness have many sources. For example, there are occasions when telling the truth would bring people sorrow and distress. In that respect I do believe it be acceptable to lie to someone if it is the only way to spare his or her feelings, reminding us that “what you don't know, wont hurt you”. When I consider scenarios like the trolley car, in my own opinion, numbers matter. Sparing multiple people in sacrifice of one individual is pertinent to those types of scenarios. I think it is equally vital to take age into consideration. I believe it is reasonable and necessary to spare younger generations as opposed to older ones. When deciding on what to do in situations we must consider all the factors and people in question. I think quantity and circumstances play a central role in deciding in the matter of split seconds who to push or who not too. That brings up the question; “Is it always ok to harm a small group of people in order to spare a larger group from pain?” No, it is not always permissible to harm a smaller number in order to prevent harm to a large number. I don't believe it is always permissible to value a larger group’s happiness over a smaller group’s happiness. For example, what if that smaller group of people were in the Peace Corps going to help aid a large and vulnerable population. They would be helping the greater good, regardless of the fact that they are a smaller group. In the same scenario, I could argue the larger group was a group of rapists, murders and pedophiles. I don't think something can be always valued as more important just because there is more of it. Hence, it is not always permissible. In this way utilitarianism does not always hold the right answer but leads you to taking into consideration factors of the specific circumstance. In another scenario, we consider the needs versus the wants of a town. In this town, the larger group would want to build a stadium over building a new hospital. The sports stadium would provide a sense of satisfaction to the larger group. On the other hand, the hospital provides a higher purpose. It will provide healthcare for all. In this case, Utilitarianism is flawed. When considering the sports stadium verses the hospital it needs to be thought of in conceptual way. A hospital in fact does provide happiness for
PO-406-01
Criminal Justice Seminar
Olivia Guiney
February 18th 2016
When I consider Utilitarianism and the principal of utility, I first consider our inherent nature. Our nature and our own fostered environment have us under the governance of “Two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. For pain and pleasure dictates how we live, the decisions we make and the chains of cause and effect. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure” (Sandel, 2007). While determining these factors, problems begin to arise. What is defined as pleasure and what is considered pain? One can argue that pleasure, and a freedom from anything-painful are the only ideals desirable as ends. These aspects are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain (Sandel, 2007). According to the principal of utilitarianism, we should always do whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness or whatever is necessary to prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness (Sandel, 2009). …show more content…
Deciding how and when to prioritize happiness for the greatest number of people can become very controversial. In the criterion of right and wrong, there is always a level of uncertainty and reservation. What is deemed “right” in some eyes is considered so wrong in the eyes of another. How can one determine what is considered as happiness for some, because perhaps this is simply not considered a state of happiness for others? In many aspects, the principal of utility can divide thoughts and prohibit societal success. The principal of utility tells us to do whatever is necessary to minimize pain and unhappiness, but pain and unhappiness have many sources. For example, there are occasions when telling the truth would bring people sorrow and distress. In that respect I do believe it be acceptable to lie to someone if it is the only way to spare his or her feelings, reminding us that “what you don't know, wont hurt you”. When I consider scenarios like the trolley car, in my own opinion, numbers matter. Sparing multiple people in sacrifice of one individual is pertinent to those types of scenarios. I think it is equally vital to take age into consideration. I believe it is reasonable and necessary to spare younger generations as opposed to older ones. When deciding on what to do in situations we must consider all the factors and people in question. I think quantity and circumstances play a central role in deciding in the matter of split seconds who to push or who not too. That brings up the question; “Is it always ok to harm a small group of people in order to spare a larger group from pain?” No, it is not always permissible to harm a smaller number in order to prevent harm to a large number. I don't believe it is always permissible to value a larger group’s happiness over a smaller group’s happiness. For example, what if that smaller group of people were in the Peace Corps going to help aid a large and vulnerable population. They would be helping the greater good, regardless of the fact that they are a smaller group. In the same scenario, I could argue the larger group was a group of rapists, murders and pedophiles. I don't think something can be always valued as more important just because there is more of it. Hence, it is not always permissible. In this way utilitarianism does not always hold the right answer but leads you to taking into consideration factors of the specific circumstance. In another scenario, we consider the needs versus the wants of a town. In this town, the larger group would want to build a stadium over building a new hospital. The sports stadium would provide a sense of satisfaction to the larger group. On the other hand, the hospital provides a higher purpose. It will provide healthcare for all. In this case, Utilitarianism is flawed. When considering the sports stadium verses the hospital it needs to be thought of in conceptual way. A hospital in fact does provide happiness for