People who are mentally ill and commit crimes are able to get therapy rather than be punished. There are multiple ideologies that argue whether or not therapy should be an option. For example, the idea of Utilitarianism is to promote the greatest amount of happiness possible. In this essay, I will be arguing that Utilitarianism supports the idea of therapy because it brings greater happiness for the many, it allows society to help those who refused to be helped, and there is no “right” and “wrong” in treating those who don’t want to be treated.
Utilitarianism’s main focus is to do whatever brings about the most happiness and do least of whatever brings unhappiness. “First, the utility, happiness, and pleasure referred to are those of all persons …show more content…
So, it can be argued that when you are assigning therapy to a person without their permission, you are violating their happiness and their rights. “The logic of cure will push is toward forms of therapy that inevitably involve changes in the person made against his will… does not regard his action in this way” (Morris 487). Here he is trying to say that once you condemn a person to therapy you aren’t holding them accountable for their actions. This can also be problematic in a Utilitarian view because if those actions brought unhappiness, there would now be no one accountable. This doesn’t mean that Utilitarianism doesn’t believe in individual self-interest, because it does, everyone should do things to make themselves happy. Primoratz wrote that if there were to be a situation where one could have aided to prevent unhappiness but chose to do nothing, it is just as bad as causing the unhappiness themselves. This statement alone could prove that Utilitarianism does support therapy, even with the argument above. Although the therapy may be given against their will, in a Utilitarian society, not helping the person is just as bad as causing the harm to them yourself. Some people may disagree with this and say that it meant taking away someone’s rights, and that shouldn’t be morally right to do. This brings up another point, Utilitarianism has no right or wrong, it holds another definition of …show more content…
The main idea is to promote greater happiness and to not induce actions that would increase any sort of unhappiness. Once the person who is mentally ill gets treatment, they are out of society, but also bettering themselves and getting cured. There may be some disputes with whether the idea fully supports therapy because there are some aspects that don’t apply. For instance, sending someone into therapy without their consent takes away their rights as a person. The idea of Utilitarianism also states that doing nothing is just as bad as causing unhappiness yourself, so sending someone to therapy is the solution to this. But, is that morally correct or “right to do”? According to Utilitarianism, there is no “right” or “wrong”, only the consequences that actions bring and whether those consequences cause happiness for unhappiness. The idea would support therapy, but to a certain
Utilitarianism’s main focus is to do whatever brings about the most happiness and do least of whatever brings unhappiness. “First, the utility, happiness, and pleasure referred to are those of all persons …show more content…
So, it can be argued that when you are assigning therapy to a person without their permission, you are violating their happiness and their rights. “The logic of cure will push is toward forms of therapy that inevitably involve changes in the person made against his will… does not regard his action in this way” (Morris 487). Here he is trying to say that once you condemn a person to therapy you aren’t holding them accountable for their actions. This can also be problematic in a Utilitarian view because if those actions brought unhappiness, there would now be no one accountable. This doesn’t mean that Utilitarianism doesn’t believe in individual self-interest, because it does, everyone should do things to make themselves happy. Primoratz wrote that if there were to be a situation where one could have aided to prevent unhappiness but chose to do nothing, it is just as bad as causing the unhappiness themselves. This statement alone could prove that Utilitarianism does support therapy, even with the argument above. Although the therapy may be given against their will, in a Utilitarian society, not helping the person is just as bad as causing the harm to them yourself. Some people may disagree with this and say that it meant taking away someone’s rights, and that shouldn’t be morally right to do. This brings up another point, Utilitarianism has no right or wrong, it holds another definition of …show more content…
The main idea is to promote greater happiness and to not induce actions that would increase any sort of unhappiness. Once the person who is mentally ill gets treatment, they are out of society, but also bettering themselves and getting cured. There may be some disputes with whether the idea fully supports therapy because there are some aspects that don’t apply. For instance, sending someone into therapy without their consent takes away their rights as a person. The idea of Utilitarianism also states that doing nothing is just as bad as causing unhappiness yourself, so sending someone to therapy is the solution to this. But, is that morally correct or “right to do”? According to Utilitarianism, there is no “right” or “wrong”, only the consequences that actions bring and whether those consequences cause happiness for unhappiness. The idea would support therapy, but to a certain