Utilitarianism Theory-Free-Samples for Students-Myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Utilitarianism Theory. Answer: Utilitarianism Theory The Utilitarian theory places the choice of right and wrong on the outcomes of the actions. It finds application in ethical dilemmas and other situations that call for hard choices to be made. In a hypothetical scenario, a boat has capsized and 30 people have survived. Ten are in the lifeboat while 20 are treading water. The area where the boat capsized is infested with sharks. A decision has to be made on who to save. Using the Benthams Rule of Utility and the Act utilitarianism, the following people can be saved in the lifeboat. Who are in the Boat? In order to decide to make the decision, the starting point is to find out who is in the boat. They probably managed to get into the boat through sheer willpower and the need to survive. Starting from this assumption, I would not attempt to eject any of them from the lifeboat. In case it takes a week before being spotted and saved, the initial ten stand the highest chance of surviving until that time (Chappell, 2015). Therefore, all the ten in the boat will remain and help in deciding the fate of those in the water. Who are in the water? The choice as to who stays in the water will depend on several factors. The first is age. Any person above fifty will be left in the water. Children below ten years will automatically be saved but without their parents. The second is the status of health. Any person who is sick (appears to struggle in treading the water) will also be left. The third is the occupation or the life-skills of those in the water. A doctor or any person with training in the medical allied field will be saved. Using these considerations, ten persons will be allowed on to the lifeboat. Benthams Principle In case a sick or ailing person is saved, they will soon bring about mental suffering to the rest of the people in the lifeboat. It is easier to leave them in the water. At the same time, it is harder to watch young children to be devoured by sharks. It is easier for their parents and adults who have lived a full life to be attacked and eaten. Danchev (2016) asserts that saving able-bodied adults and children brings the least pain to the rest of the survivors in the lifeboat. Act Utilitarianism In choosing those with medical training or life survival skills over the other professions will produce the best results. They can put their skills and expertise to practical use with the rest of the survivors. For example, they may administer first-aid. Leuven Visak (2013) assert that the moral objective is to lessen the pain of others in the boat. In choosing the initial ten in the boat, authority is established. If any in this group had been ejected, the possibility of fighting would have occurred. The boat would have been damaged and would have jeopardized all the survivors. By electing the ten to stay on board, they can assist in making the decision. Braddock (2013) posits that it is the least objectionable action which creates a bond of survival as they wait to be rescued. The theory of Utilitarianism rests on the choices that are made and the results which follow. In the hypothetical case stated above, the Bentham rule dictates that young children should be chosen over their parents. Using the Act Utilitarianism, choosing a medical practitioner over an accountant will bring the best good in this scenario. The theory can, therefore, be used in the above dilemma to choose who will stay on the lifeboat References Braddock, M. (2013). Defusing the Demandingness Objection: Unreliable Intuitions. Journal of Social Philosophy, 44(2), 169. doi:10.1111/josp.12018 Chappell, R. Y. (2015). Value Receptacles. Nous, 49(2), 322-332. doi:10.1111/nous.12023 Danchev, S. (2016). Was Bentham a primitive rational choice theory predecessor? European Journal Of The History Of Economic Thought, 23(2), 297-322. doi:10.1080/09672567.2014.916728 Leuven, J., Viak, T. (2013). Ryder's Painism and His Criticism of Utilitarianism. Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics, 26(2), 409-419. doi:10.1007/s10806-012-93