Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong by focusing on the consequences of the said action. In other words, it holds that the most ethicly correct choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number.
It is the only moral approch that can justify military force and war, and also the one most commonly used in buisness estimates because of the way in which it accounts for costs and benefits, while leaving out of the equation the natural humane understanding of right and wrong.
Here is a hypothetical example to deliver the story:
Lets say that you are a doctor in well-known hospital and you are caring for 4 dieing patients whose only hope of survival is receiving organ transplants: a heart, lungs, kidney and a liver. And just to make the situation even clearer, lets assume that you know with certainty that if those patients receive said organs they will go on to live long, happy lives. However, a problem emerges, there are no donors and therefore no way to save them. Thats when you notice a healthy young man sleeping on the hospital bed just across from you and think to yourself.. his organs could be harvested..it would save four lives at the expense of one.
This would arguably produce the greatest good for the greatest number, thus going with the Utilitarianism theory and yet a few would consider it an acceptable option, let alone the most ethicly correct. The 2 most glaring issues with utilitarianism are the neglect of individual rights and translation of moral values into a single “currency”. Both of which will be discussed through the following real-life examples.
Objection 1: Individual rights
The most glaring flaw of utilitarianism, many argue, is that it fails to respect individual rights. For the utilitarian, individuals matter but only in the sense that their opinions and values are counted along with everyone else’s. One of the more obvious examples would be the thowing of Christians to the lions as a form of amusement in acient Rome. While most people’s skin would crawl on just the thought, the utilitarian could arguably find the deed justifiable. His analysis of the situation would go something like: Yes, the Christian suffers excruciating pain while the lion feeds on his flesh. But the reason behind such an act is the amusement of the crowd and if enough spectators derive enough pleasure from this gruesome spectacle, the utilitarian will find that the benefits outweigh the costs, thus making it acceptable. Of course the utilitarian could take into consideration the psychological consequences and the increased violence that is likely to arise from this, and that could possibly lead to a different outcome of his analysis, but it is important to note that the reason for deeming it wrong would not be solely because of the suffering of those thrown to the lions, which just by itself should be enough.
Objection 2: single currency of value
Utilitarianism is based on measuring, aggregating and calculating happiness, with everyone’s preferences counting equally
Utilitarianism is based on measuring and calculating the net happiness, with everyone’s preferences counted equally. This is the source of much of its appeal, however, there is a huge flaw correlated with that. In order to aggregate preferences, it is necessary to measure them on the same scale.
“But is it possible to translate all moral goods into a single currency of value without losing something in the translation?” - Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?
Thus comes into play when one is faced with putting a price on the human life. While many argue that one cannot put a price on a life because of the consequences it can have on our judgment and moral values, it is necessary for this type of cost-benefit analysis. This was the case with Ford Pinto car.
During the 1970s, the Ford Pinto was one of the best selling cars in the US, but it had one fatal flaw: because of its position, the fuel tank was prone to explode during rear end collisions. More than 500 people died as a direct result of this and many more suffered burn injuries. When one of the victims took the company to court, it was revealed that they were long aware of the danger posed by the fuel tank and even considered fixing it. They conducted a cost-benefit analysis, but determined that the benefits of fixing it (calculated in lives saved and injuries prevented) were not worth the 11 dollars per car it took to add the additional safety measure.
“To calculate the benefits to be gained by a safer gas tank, Ford estimated that 180 deaths and 180 burn injuries would result if no changes were made. It then placed a monetary value on each life lost and injury suffered - $200,000 per life, and $67,000 per injury. It added to these amounts the number and value of the Pintos likely to go up in flames, and calculated that the overall benefit of the safety improvement would be $49.5 million. But the cost of adding an $11 device to 12.5 million vehicles would be $137.5 million. So the company concluded that the cost of fixing the fuel tank was not worth the benefits of a safer car.”
It’s needless to say that the jury was appalled by these actions and the plain disregard for human life, and decided in the favor of the plaintiff. But the questions on this topic still remain and are often debated, because of the many variables involved. Is it possible to put a price on a human life? Is it morally right? What are the subconscious effects of such an action on our society as a whole?
Σχόλια