Tuesday, September 3, 2013

How does one benefit the common good

Allie Dosmann
ad449212@ohio.edu


Utilitarianism- Initial Reaction


            After reading a segment of "Moral Reasoning for Journalists" by Steven Knowlton and Bill Reader, I had a few questions about utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the idea that whatever helps the most people is what is the most ethical. This also means that it is a person’s ethical responsibility to prevent pain for as many people as possible. When I first read this theory, I thought that it made perfect sense. By maximizing the happiness and well-being for as many people as possible, you are thereby being the most ethical you could possibly be. Since helping people and protecting their happiness is an ethical thing, then basing your decisions on this concept appears logical. This argument crumbles however, when looked at any closer.

Whose happiness is the most valuable?

This theory implies that lying to a group of people to keep them in the dark over the truth of a painful situation is more logical then telling the truth and causing them pain. Another way to look at this in contrast, is does this justify lying to a source about the real point of your story in order to get more information that will be useful to you? I found this story addressing that issue here. It is something I still feel unsolved about.
I decided simply cannot agree with this concept. What if you are to lie and later the truth comes out? While you were trying to act as ethically as possible at the time by maintaining happiness, you would be increasing pain for the later date when the truth is revealed. 
This theory also is not sound because it implies that someone’s happiness or pain may be more valued than another person’s.  Another flaw is that this concept invites people to rate how much of an emotion they are feeling, whether pain or happiness. This is something that is nearly impossible to do objectively. 
Yet another flaw to this theory is the idea that people might not really know what is best for them. What makes a person happy is very possibly not the most ethical circumstance. For example, if it would make me happy to steal a candy bar and I would not get caught and therefore my mother would not be disappointed and the store clerk would not be angry, does that make it ethical? No. 

*This theory is not all bad. This shows how utilitarianism is the basis for the concept of freedom of expression and speech.


What does this mean about our government?

         Once deciding that this theory is not what I agree with, it led me to question: Why is this the basis of our government? Appeasing the most people does not lead to the most ethical scenario in arguably the majority of situations. There could be people with ill intentions and people who are ignorant to the reality of a situation that make up part of the majority. Therefore, these people’s happiness might not really be in the majority’s best interest or ultimate pleasure when all the information is revealed. The only conclusion I could come to is that a “majority rule” is the only way to make government seem fair, even though some people’s views being weighed equally to other’s may not be such a good thing. 

Talk about something that makes you feel skeptical about government.

No comments:

Post a Comment