Philosophy of Utilitarianism - Essay Example

Justice In this discussion, Sandel starts by posing a double edged question on the moral side of committing murder. First, he asks if you could react or kill one person and save five lives or wait and see the five dying even though you had earlier known that the five would die. This is the pillar in his discussion on moral reasoning. This is what he calls the philosophy of utilitarianism which should include all the principles of utility. This topic has two main themes, that is, utilitarianism and harm to the innocent. In the utility principles, man should always do what will elude huge amounts of happiness and avoid what will prevent one from achieving probable happiness. Therefore this poses another critical question: what would you do if harming or killing the other party will elude the highest happiness? First, he cites an example of a person driving along a tunnel and realizes a farmer fall on the road just in front of his vehicle. If you move ahead, you will probably kill the farmer but if you divert, you will probably collide with a forthcoming school bus and the least number of deaths that you can cause is five. The big question is what do you and are we convinced that utilitarianism gives the right answer. Secondly, Sandel asks if for instance, there is a munitions factory that is surrounded by ten thousands innocent civilians thus, all will die if you bomb the factory but if you let the factory continue producing more bombs, fifty innocent civilians will be killed. Thus, what do you do and is utilitarianism the right choice in solving this? In another case, Sandel questions if it is credible to torture a suspected bomber to extract more information on the plans of attack in New York which will have exploded in 24 hours if the police do not intervene. Thus he asks if utilitarianism is the right answer to this case. Lastly, Sandel further questions if it is credible and legal to retrieve information from an innocent member of the family in the case where the suspected bomber acknowledge that the only person who can reveal the position of the bomb is an innocent member of his family. In the second part, Sandel dwells on the topic, ‘telling the truth’. In this case, he rejects the fact that we have to reduce pain in unhappiness in whatever we do as unhappiness and pains have numerous sources. Furthermore, he state that there are instances when truth makes somebody unhappy. Thereby, he questions if one has to lie to make the other party happy. He therefore comes up with three cases in this argument. First, he asserts if it is right to tell a friend who is fond of singing while taking a shower. He posits that your friend all along has thought his voice is the best but he sings poorly. Thus, should you tell your friend the truth and ruin his confidence? Secondly, he asserts that you have just learned that a man who has been missing for a very long time is dead. What is the right step for you to do? Should you tell the family member of the sad news even if it will make them despair? Later he question if it is okay to wrong for one to lie, is there any moral duty that is attached in telling the truth however much the consequences might be? More so, do the duties confirm that we are misled by the principles of utility? In addition, Sandel dwells on the purposes for one to live which state that we should minimize happiness. The activities are not limited in terms of national rules and regulations or in private life. Therefore is it always true to be happy in the actions that we engage in? For instance, Sandel questions if it is right to volunteer all your evenings to make the poor happy. That is, if you spare one of you evenings, the poor will become happy but their happiness will increase more if you dedicate all your evenings. Is this the right thing to do? In the second episode, Sandel deals with features of utilitarianism and its evaluation. He states that the principle of utilitarianism classifies a right action if it produces huge amount of happiness and it at the same time reduces unhappiness. For instance he questions the credibility of either building a new hospital or a new sports stadium. He concludes that the viability of building a stadium depends on the level of happiness that it creates on the fans and the level of pain it will cause on the sick. Thus, according to Bentham, the option that will yield huge balance of pleasure will be opted. Thus, happiness is like pleasure with the absence leading to happiness. Furthermore, Bentham utilitarianism counts all the pains and pleasure and all types of pain and pleasure is treated equally. Lastly, this Bentham states that one person should sacrifice for the sake of the others. Thereafter, Sandel evaluates utilitarianism by use of the aspects of happiness and pleasure. In his discussion, Sandel also evaluates utilitarianism by focusing on libertarian’s view. He alleges that libertarians blame the government as it is the source of threat to human rights. They think that law is the main inhibitor to the people’s rights. Sandel posits that the libertarians can evaluate their discussion by use of distribution pattern and liberty. I this case, the libertarians claim that the government distributes wealth in a particular pattern. For instance, the government taxes the poor just like the rich and makes resources to have an equal flow. Thus, tax redistributed is not just. More so, Nozick comments that redistribution of tax and forced labor is another aspect of inequality where he alleges that inequality between the rich and the poor is a form of forced labor. Lastly, Nozick argues that redistribution of tax is unjust and incompatible just like the historical view of justice where justice acquisition of an item leads to justice ownership. In episode 4, Sandel dwells on equality, freedom, government by consent and property rights. He justifies private property ownership basing on Locke’s argument. Locke acknowledges property ownership even before government institution. Lock believes that a person has a right to own property if he has taken efforts in its creation. Further, he should believe that the thing will not spoil. Sandel moves on discusses the legitimate of Locke’s appropriation. He later discusses the nature of the legitimate government where everyone is governed by the law although the state of nature has numerous inconveniences. Sandel expounds on his discussion on the nature of cash where he queries if there are things that should not be either services or goods. For instance, Sandel alludes to the civic duty that applied during the American civil war where armies paid other people for their roles in the army. Sandel refers to this as substitution and commutation. Later, he alludes to the motherhood aspects where the commercial surrogacy contract means carrying someone’s baby for a period of time for exchange of money. Sandel therefore questions the validity and credibility of the pay for this kind of service. Later on, Sandel expounds on the discussion by introducing Immanuel Kant who rejects the principles of utilitarianism. Kant argues that everyone has fundamental rights and duties which precede maximum utility. Furthermore, he rejects that morality means considering the consequences that is doing what is right because we are obliged to. For instance, Kant exemplifies by the shopkeeper who gives wrong change which makes his business at stake if other customers realizes. Thus, Kant states that such a shopkeeper has no morals in his actions. Kant also reiterates that despite our actions, our capacity to go above these self interests is very vital as it confers our morals. In this case, Sandel explains by an example of a young boy wins a bee spelling contest but he admits t the judges that the last word was wrongly misspelled. Thus, this forms a basis for Sande to explain the theory of Kant. Sandel explains a lesson in lying when he uses Immanuel Kant’s allegation that when you tell a lie, it is against your dignity. Thus, Sandel uses this theory when he gives an example of a hiding friend and the killer comes and asks you, what would you do? Thus, it leads to the dodging truths video which highlights Clinton and Monica as in a relationship. At this juncture, Sandel introduces John Rawls in the modern philosophy. Rawls disputes the past principles as principles should be fair and allow all to give their views. In the eighth episode, Kant continues with the discussion about Rawls who argue that meritocracy does not exist for a long time as the talented will always prosper. Thus, Sandel explains the fairness that results from difference in pay. In this case he compares the earning of a Judy a television judge who earns $25 while Sandra a Supreme Court justice earns $200, 000. Therefore, Sandel asks if this is fair. Later Sandel introduces Aristotle and his justice theory who totally disagrees with the allegations of Kant and Rawls. According to Aristotle, one must consider the goal, purpose and the end product of the process. For instance, Sandel asserts that the best flute players should be given the best available flutes. Later, he states that our society is actually determined by where t is best fitted and this eliminates personal choice. Sandel therefore dispels view of freedom by Aristotle in defending slavery which is a social role of human beings. Sandels concludes that the government cannot be neutral especially on very difficult moral questions like abortion and similar sex marriage. Furthermore, Sande questions why we should not deliberate on these issues such as civic and economic concerns with similar spiritual and morals. He gives a case of the new politics in the common good. Work Cited Sandel, Michael. Justice. Web November 14 2012. Read More