4 pgs within 7 hrs

PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Name

Institution

PHI 208 Ethics and Moral Reasoning

Introduction

Penalties of our actions is a critical aspect of societal life as it creates the link between free will and moral responsibility. However, if utilitarian is justified, then consequences of our actions would be all that matters. Therefore, the question at hand is, what is wrong with utilitarianism? At the same time, would the actions of our soldiers going to war be justified as being ethically right? The core principle of the utilitarian theory states that the best action is the one which produces the best outcomes that is most satisfying. It is a reminder that morality wants us to look beyond the self but to the good of all as well. Contrary to popular deontological beliefs, the principle opposes the idea that a deed is only right when a person practices according to established standards or norms. In this case, it would be difficult to determine the moral standpoint when an actions results to harm despite following set rules (Thames, 2018). In other words, are all rules alright? Would compromise be reasonable in producing good results? By forming the primary argument in support of utilitarianism, the essay details a discussion of utilitarianism, ethical issues that would need to be addressed, explanation and defense of utilitarianism, objection and response, as well as a conclusion of ethical issues in utilitarianism. While many might not agree, supporting this type of moral reasoning is justified as it holds the right course of action in situations which produces the greatest balance of more benefits than harm to the affected parties.

Primary Argument

Application of this theory to our lives may make us become more unselfish where unavoidable problems we face may be lessened. Every individual is put into consideration when calculating the happiness produced by our actions. Therefore, discrimination and prejudice has no place in making this moral decision. It is the only moral reasoning to justify military war, political and moral dialogue (Shaw, 2016). Additionally, it is a common approach to proper reasoning applied in business in the way it accounts for benefits and costs. For instance, a business strategy would be regarded as being effective once it contributes to additional revenues and cost reduction operations. According to Taylor (1992), making sense with modern preoccupations should bring a sense of authenticity, self-determination and fulfillment. Overcoming modern malaise involves focusing on obtaining good results rather than concentrating and worrying about how the good consequences would be realized. Authenticity will not reflect on the morality of actions but the purity of actions that yield more benefits than harm.

In the military, utilitarianism is the only moral reasoning which can be applied. The army has to assume that each mission plays a role of bringing the greater good, be it fascism, terrorism or communism, to ensure the survival of the nation (Shaw, 2016). Additionally, in cases of practical exercises such as testing an environment for a chemical attack without testing kits, it is usually the most expandable soldiers who are chosen. That is the lowest rank officers who are chosen at random. From this context of the military, utilitarianism is much preferable than any other option (Walzer, 2015). The idea of the greater good is the greatest source of motivation in military lives. The same principle applies to cases where the Central Intelligence Agency receives information about a terrorist threat in the country. Agents capture the suspect who they believe has information about the threat. The agents will do any means necessary to obtain information about the potential risk or hazard and would even subject the suspect to torture. Eventually, their moral decision would be justified as aiming to get results for the greater good to disable the threat.

Explanation and Defense

In its defense, utilitarianism defends the very essence of maintaining peace and upholding the right values in the society. An action would be deemed right if it results in justifiable and reasonable consequences. On the other hand, a deed would be wrong if the impact brings adverse effects to the people. In this case, the actions taken do not determine morality and ethical standpoints (Thames, 2018). Utilitarianism can be traced back in the eighteenth and nineteenth century in England, where Bentham, a legal reformer objectified on the publicly acceptable norms in determining the type of laws England should enact. As one of the greatest philosophers in his time, he believed the most promising way of reaching an agreement would be to choose policies which would greatly benefit the society after everything has been taken into account (Fludernik, 2017). Before arriving at a decision, we first identify different causes of actions we could perform and determine their foreseeable benefits or harm which may result from the action (Taylor, 1992). Afterwards, a person is obliged to choose the course of actions which would greatly benefit everyone involved after costs have been taken into account. This means that individuals should weigh the benefits and drawbacks of their actions before undertaking them.

Before a nation goes to war, a lot of war principles follows a tradition fair well. a legitimate authority formed by certain officials decides whether the nation will go to war. This authority prevents war from proliferating. Therefore, utilitarian decision is favored. In other words, all military decisions are based on utilitarian ethics. It makes it easy for the military to justify their actions in the civilian world. Finishing the mission regardless of anything is the most important task they are required to do (Shaw, 2016). If every soldier were to follow their individual moral codes when on a mission, some of them would not have done what’s required of them or unable to kill leading to loss of wars. The most expandable soldiers are usually the ones in the frontline of fire and it acts as an incentive to getting a promotion as fast as possible.

These decisions offer a straightforward method in deciding moral right causes of action people may find themselves in. it does not matter whether the desired benefits or results are produced by manipulation, coercion or lies. However, the justice of war theory outlines the principles of how a war starts, which involves utilitarian decisions. Principle of necessity is one of the law which states that force and violence may be employed only if it serves a legitimate military goal. Therefore, if it is necessary to end war through fighting, the actions of the military would be justified and defended (Thames, 2018). On the other hand, the principle of proportionality is another rule where use of violence should be proportional to the value of the military objectives (Thames, 2018). This means that despite being allowed to use force in maintaining peace, a soldier would not use excessive force if the threat is not imminent or does not pose significant risks. Finally, the principle of discrimination and non-combatant immunity is the law whereby soldiers are not to target any non-combatant people and they must make an effort to avoid bringing harm to the vulnerable (Thames, 2018). Children, grandparents and mothers, religious leaders, doctors among others are non-combatants and they should not be attacked intentionally and exceptions would gradually deteriorate their character. Utilitarian comes to play in maintaining these principles when soldiers are at war, making it a vital part of waging and winning a war. In this regard, the principle of non-combat seals the loophole or weakness in the utilitarian theory that may permit discrimination or mistreatment of people with the perception of bringing good to the society.

Objections and Response

Utilitarianism’s mainly focuses on the end means of a decision where if the resulting action brings the greatest happiness to parties affected, then these judgments should be treated as ethical. Deontology, on the other hand, objectifies utilitarianism. It demands that means or actions taken to any decision must be ethical and bounded by norms. They argue that some actions, regardless of the outcomes are still immoral (Thames, 2018). This philosophical tradition demands that humans should act as though their decisions and actions would be based on rational thought and that the means should justify the end. Additionally, human acts should be universalized to a general rule.

A deontologist, for example, would argue that committing a murder is wrong and attacking a murderer even though they murder other people is not ethical. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would encourage the killing the murderer to avert future killings which they would commit if they are left free. Deontologists critique utilitarianism arguing that it is difficult to forecast consequences of actions with conviction and that the only thing that is undisputable are whether the deeds are principled or not (Thames, 2018). Additionally, deontologists argue that people are only accountable for their actions.

Utilitarianism, on the other hand, defend that there is no such thing as universal moral truths, and such truths are impossible or difficult to ascertain. Additionally, benefits and disadvantages can be easily evaluated rather than relying on what is moral or amorphous truths (Thames, 2018). In this case, the significant impacts or effects of good should not be weighed down by an insignificant action. This means that an action that brings more good than bad is ethical as opposed to one which results in more harm and less good under established norms. Utilitarianism is justified since it is guided by the principles of necessity, proportionality, and non-combat immunity.

Conclusion

Utilitarianism highlights important issues on how human beings should make moral judgements. It stresses the context and individual features which pose moral problems and methods for dealing with different situations. Utilitarianism cannot be the sole guiding principle in decision making if moral decisions take into account the consideration of justice. However, it could play a role in the making of decisions, since it provides a platform to consider immediate consequences of our actions. It makes us look beyond our self- interests and consider other people affected by our actions. In today’s era, utilitarianism is a strong reminder that the value of human life where morality calls us to think not only of our personal interests but the interests of others as well.

References

Fludernik, M. (2017). Panopticisms: from fantasy to metaphor to reality. Textual Practice, 31(1), 1-26.

Shaw, W. H. (2016). Utilitarianism and the Ethics of War. Routledge.

Taylor, Charles (1992). The Ethics of Authenticity. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Thames, B. (2018). How should one Live? An introduction to ethics and moral reasoning (3rd ed.). retrieved from https://content.ashford.ed

Walzer, M. (2015). Just and unjust wars: A moral argument with historical illustrations. Basic books.