Morally Correct to Promote Happiness

Essay, Pages 6 (1383 words)

Views

Introduction

Ethics and moral responsibility have been the center for both theological and philosophical debates aiming at establishing the guiding principles. Ideally, the debates have been centered on establishing the link between what is universally right and what is right in a certain context. That said, several philosophical works have been developed with contradicting but essential fundamentals to guide moral responsibility in the society. One of the philosophical approaches used in this case, therefore, is the utilitarian approach of ethics and moral responsibilities.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Morally Correct to Promote Happiness ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Therefore, this discussion seeks to contribute to developing arguments regarding moral responsibilities in the view of utilitarianism.

Principles of Utilitarian Approach

The basis of this approach is centered on the promotion of happiness thus any moral action seeks to increase happiness while reducing suffering. Peter Singer (1946) one of the proponents of this approach indicates that the essence of rules and moral responsibility is not to stop people from having fun but instead increase happiness in society (Rachels, 2012). According to Rachels (2012), utilitarianism is based on three basic principles.

Firstly, the morality of actions relies on the consequences of such actions only. Secondly, the consequences of an action are judged with regard to the intensity of happiness or unhappiness of individuals. Lastly, happiness that arises from individual actions is assessed with equal considerations (Rachels, 2012).

Proponents of Utilitarianism

The utilitarian approach has been an essential point of moral responsibility as well as solving moral dilemma through the happiness balance. In this regard, individual actions are put into a balance to gauge the intensity of happiness over unhappiness.

For instance, in the case of euthanasia, the happiness of the patients may surpass the unhappiness of the relatives. Therefore, the practice is termed moral. On the same respect, the suffering of the patient may be a point of consideration leading to actions that can increase happiness to the dying person (Rachels, 2012). Utilitarian in the case of euthanasia brings a relevant judgment to the moral actions and debates between the performer of euthanasia and the patient. In essence, the patient's conditions in some instances are considered to be so bad that death becomes the most preferred treatment and thus killing the patients becomes the end of his agony. To sum up, therefore, utilitarians would regard death as a means of ending suffering to be morally right (Rachels, 2012).

Theological argument and the essence of God forbidding some of the utilitarian moral judgment cannot entirely stand without a trial of logical thinking. As Rachels (2012) argues if God is caring and loving He would not frustrate moral actions that are aimed at ending suffering. In this line of thinking, therefore, mercy killing which is ideally performed to end suffering would be advocated and endorsed by the Christianity faith since they believe God does not want people to suffer. In reality, therefore, following this background information that the Christian God is loving then moral actions centered on this divinity would concur with the utilitarian principles of ending suffering and promoting happiness in the society.

That said, the order of moral guidance has failed to put into practice the ideas that if God is loving and caring he should permit mercy killing as long as it increases happiness while reducing suffering. For the utilitarians, therefore, most of the moral judgment across the societies have relied on the Christianity line of argument thus the Christianity influence (Rachels, 2012). According to Rachels (2012), utilitarianism notions have been shadowed by the theological thinking and that the contemporary legal traditions have evolved under Christianity influence. Consequently some of the medical such as euthanasia have remained to be an ethical dilemma among countries most of the western countries with some countries regarding it as a capital offense.

Utilitarianism brings a great insight regarding freedom for all the stakeholders in society. In this, this line of thinking utilitarians advocates that the essence of law in society is not to restrict freedom but to promote the welfare of the citizens (Rachels, 2012). Therefore, utilitarians in this line of thinking bring insight to mean that people should be given the utmost freedom to practice and exercise all the activities given that such activities would not bring harm to other people. Additionally, in the words of Bentham (1859), laws and regulations should only be designed to restrict people from harming others but not to restrict their freedom (Rachels, 2012). Therefore, whatever an individual desire that is related to his well-being is meant to fulfill him and increase happiness thus it would be morally right.

Opposing the utilitarian approach

Several moral judgments have been centered on the utilitarian lines of argument. In this case, therefore, issues such as the use of marijuana, euthanasia and the treatment of nonhuman animals have been justified by the principles of utilitarianism. The justification, in this case, is that the practice is moral or ethical if it brings happiness while in the same respect decreasing suffering to parties involved. For the case of euthanasia, the opponents of utilitarianism feel that killing another person to end his suffering is against some divinity actions such as the Christianity moral thinking (Rachels, 2012). In this line of thinking, therefore, human life is solely left to the judgment of the creator who decides when to spear or end it. Additionally, some of the euthanasia practices are regarded wrong in theologian's doctrine which indicates that the killing of innocent people is not right (Rachels, 2012). Therefore, even though utilitarian would justify that euthanasia was performed to reduce suffering the universal theologian doctrine would contend such actions stating that the person is innocent thus does not deserve to be killed.

The notion of utilitarian relies on promoting happiness and that right actions are the one that produces good results (Rachels, 2012). In this case, therefore, the idea that an action is universally wrong in some context does warrant it to be immoral until it is proven to bring results that do not promote pleasure or desirable happiness. In essence, the ends of action would justify the intents since the actions of the predicted outcomes give judgment on the moral stand of an action. Judgment in this line of thinking would not guarantee fairness as most of the actions would be promoted concerning the context of the performer. For instance, offering false information to convict one person with an effort of saving a group of people would be appraised by the utilitarians since it brings happiness to the majority, but it is universally wrong as it is based on false witness.

Solving moral issues using the utilitarian approach would not be compatible with the essence of justice. In essence, Rachels (2012), indicates that the fundamentals of justice require that all people be treated fairly in accordance with merits but not the consequences of the actions. In this case, convicting one individual to save many would be regarded right by utilitarian, but it would be an unfair and incorrect mode of judgment.

Individual's rights may be at stake when utilitarian judgment is put into place. For instance, if individual right hinders happiness of others, then it would be trampled to give pleasure to the majority involved (Rachels, 2012). Most of the contemporary cases with regard to this argument is the right to speak one’s mind which might be suppressed with a purpose of benefiting the vast majority who are believed to be affected by the freedom of speech exercised by this individual. In another account, adhering to the utilitarian approach leads to denouncing of personal, moral beliefs and integrity in order to promote other people's happiness (Marques, 2015). This case utilitarian would align their actions to support what is considered to bring overall good.

The Take-Away

The utilitarian approach has been used in different context to solve an ethical dilemma. In this respect moral judgment has been aligned with the principles of utilitarianism. According to these principles, the consequences of an action determine the moral judgment of that action. Additionally, such actions should seek to promote the happiness of a vast majority if they were to be considered morally right. However, some critics of this approach indicate that the consequences of an action cannot be used to determine what is right and what is wrong. Additionally, the approach has been regarded as incomplete in providing moral judgment due to its manipulation on individual rights as well as its impact on the context of justice.