Rule Utilitarian Ethics and Hurricane Katrina - Essay Example

Response to the Documentary When the Levees Broke The government had warned about the calamity that will befall New Orleans and advised the citizens there to evacuate before the Hurricane Katrina struck the lands (Lee, 2006). However, some people including my family did not move to other safe cities due to ignorance and the expensiveness of the evacuation process. Hurricane Katrina eventually struck, and many families including mine lost their homes due to the floods. The government’s rescue mission delayed hence, the situation forced us to stay together and fight for survival as family friends and neighbours. We waited for a long time for the rescue unit to come until we run out of provisions. So one of the neighbours suggested that we form a group which will go and take some food and other provisions in a local supermarket and divide whatever we collect equally. The provisions were to be shared only between the families that have participated in the raid. There was a probability of getting the provisions we wanted including some food staffs, bottled water and medicals supplies to help the sick. Deciding to go and steal was tough, but I was forced to join the group so that I could provide for my family because they lacked food and clean water. The paper herein had discussed the reasons for my decision by referring to the Rule Utilitarian Ethics Theory. The theory of utilitarian ethics is a philosophical view that explains how people should assess situations before they make choices. The theory states that things that can be evaluated include policies, laws, moral codes and character traits. The approach focuses on the consequences of the actions, not the activities themselves. Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher in the discipline of English, is the one accredited as the person who came up with the theory. Bentham did research and found out that the core values in the universe are pleasure and pain (Bentham, 1983). Bentham further says that the rule of utility is made by assessing the consequences of the actions which are either pleasure or pain. Bentham suggests that government institutions should make laws and policies by looking at how they affect the majority. According to Bentham (1983), a good law is the one which brings more pleasure to the larger population in a particular nation. Bentham defines the concept "good" as the actions which bring happiness to lager majority in a community (Bentham, 1983). According to the theory, I would do what would be of interest to the majority in the community. Therefore, I would go with the group to collect provisions from the supermarket and feed families which are starving. According to Bentham, the activities I engage in should bring pleasure to the greater majority. My family and those of my friends were suffering from hunger and diseases due to cold weather and poor leaving conditions. The local supermarket was owned by one individual, and there were more than 50 people to be saved from hunger. Hence, going to steal from one person to save the lives of many has been justified by the theory through its definition of the term “good”. Bentham also talks about the concept “well-being” which I used to justify my action. Bentham explains that it is important for an individual to consider the well-being of a group over that of a single person when making decisions. The author gives an example of a terrorist attack in a country to explain the concept of "well-being". If a terrorist group has held hostage 20 people in a hotel and wants the government to give them access to the country’s military weapons or else they will kill the hostages. Bentham suggests that the government should let the hostages and the criminals die and save the rest of the country because if the terrorist control military weapons they can kill more than 20 people. He further advises that the state should try to save the hostages without complying with the terrorists’ demands. The situation Bentham gave above is the same as the one I am experiencing. I have to decide on whether to let my family and friends starve to death or save them by stealing from one individual. Bentham’s example shows that“good” is an action that benefits a group but not one individual. If I were stealing from the local supermarket for my selfish gains, then I would have been wrong morally. However, in the situation in New Orleans, am going to take provisions from a local supermarket to save my family, friends and neighbours. Another example that is in relation to Rule Utilitarian Ethics and supports my decision is an accident that involves a pedestrian and a bus full of people. Rule Utilitarian Ethics suggests that a driver of a bus full of people should just hit a pedestrian who is on the wrong side of the highway to save may persons in the bus. However, the driver should run-over the pedestrian-only if it is dangerous to leave the road to apply emergency breaks. In the example above, the driver is allowed to makedecision which favours the group over the pedestrian. I agree with Rule Utilitarian Ethics theory because it favours groups over an individual. The approach has been used by most governments to come up with laws. For example, police officers are allowed to shot and kill criminals who are a threat to the greater society more precisely if the felons resist arrest and are firing on the police in public. Though stealing is not right according to the law, but when the lives of a group of people are at stake, the law can be compromised. On the other hand, the theory discourages actions which are for self-interest. The author suggests that the doer's affections should not cause the actions. The second reason why I agree with the theory is that it has clearly stated the circumstances where specific actions are good or bad. For example, in my situation stealing is right because I am going to save the lives of my friends, family and neighbours. However, stealing to be rich is wrong and unethical because action will bring pleasure to an individual. Looking at the traditional rules like the Ten Commandments states that "thou shall not do", but it has not explained the exceptions. The rules should read that "a person shall not do an action except a certain situation" arise. According to other philosophers, lying is wrong and unethical, but Bentham suggests that a person can lie if it can bring pleasure to a greater population. For example, if a person is asking for a particular group of people so that he can kill them, Bentham advises that the person asked should lie to save the lives of the targeted individuals. However, some scholars opposed the theory and argued that it could not be used to determine whether an action is ethically right or wrong. Therefore, their arguments dismiss my actions of joining a group to go and raid a local supermarket. The philosophers argue that Rule Utilitarian Ethics have been used by some people today to justify the wrong things they do. For example, the scholars say that some rich people have used the theory to justify slavery which is against humanity. Some may argue that the owner of the supermarket is also one of the citizens of New Orleans and is also trying to survive after the floods. So if we raid his store and the calamity come to an end, trust between the store's owner and us will be destroyed completely. Other people who may object my decision may argue that it is wrong to take somebody’s property without his or her concern. They may say that we could have been ready for the calamity because the government had warned about floods before it happened. Someone can also object the action by saying that we could not have ignored the warning by the government. We could have evacuated when other New Orleans citizens were moving to safer areas. Crimmins (2013)argues that no law can justify stealing of people’s property because it can bring chaos within the community. Another objection is that the owner of the supermarket has the right to secure his property. What if he decides to retaliate and kill one of us? He could have been right because he was protecting his property for the sake of his family. Lastly, Crimmins (2013) asked in his critique “is it right for a person to endanger another individual so that he can be out of danger?”Crimminsanswersthat when using the theory, the user should take the welfare of his or her fellow human into consideration. The owner of the local supermarket was also affected by the floods, and he is also trying to survive, if somebody steals from him, the person will be punishing his family too. In conclusion, the situation in New Orleans could have made anybody to do everything in their power to save their family and friends. The government had forgotten the citizens of New Orleans, there was no food, medical attention, and other requirements for humans to survive. The situation forced me to team up with another group in raiding a local store though it was not good. Rule Utilitarian Ethics justified my actions. The theory defines the concept “good” as the actions which bring pleasure to the larger society. I reasoned that I was stealing from one person and feeding a larger group that is my family, neighbours and friends. However, there are those who would have objected my actions by arguing that the theory I used has been applied by people to do evil things like slavery. Others may say that stealing from the store owner was wrong because he was a victim and was also trying to survive. However, I could have still gone ahead and ensured that my family is alive by raiding the store if necessary. References Bentham, J. (1983). The Collected Works of Jeremy Bentham: Deontology. Together with a Table of the Springs of Action and the Article on Utilitarianism. Crimmins, J. E. (2013). Secular utilitarianism: social science and the critique of religion in the thought of Jeremy Bentham. Lee, S. (2006). When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts. Retrieved on October 16th 2018 from http://youtube.com/watch?v=VjFCv6JvZnU Read More