Kim Woods ONLY

Post #3

I selected Utilitarianism as my topic for this Discussion Post.  I was able to find a vast amount of information related to this topic in the Brandman Virtual Library, but the scholarly article I chose to review is called, Hume and Utilitarianism: Another Look at an Age-Old Question.  This article provided information on what views and elements Utilitarianism entails, as well as how this topic first appeared in the field.

The first philosopher who founded Utilitarianism was Jeremy Bentham during the seventeenth century. Utilitarianism is the theory that an action should only be carried out if the results of this action bring the most pleasure or happiness to the most amount of people compared to any of the alternative outcomes (Reichlin, 2016).

Utilitarianism is thus defined by four elements: a) a consequentialist theory of right action, definition rightness in terms of maximal good; b) a hedonist theory of the good, defining goodness in terms of pleasure; c) impartiality in the calculus of utility, and d) a normative, action-guiding outlook (Reichlin, 2016, p. 2).

Jeremy Bentham was the first philosopher who incorporated all four of these elements into the theory of Utilitarianism, which is why he has received the most credit for this theory even up until today.  According to Reichlin (2016), “A number of seventeenth and eighteenth-century philosophers did argue in favor of one or two of the four main elements of utilitarianism, but no philosopher before Bentham endorsed all of them (p. 2).  

In addition to the articles I found in the Brandman Virtual Library, I took a few Philosophy courses throughout my undergraduate studies and a very well-known statement about Utilitarianism that was emphasized in these courses is “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Although, I do understand the general concept of Utilitarianism, I personally don’t fully agree with the ideology behind utilitarianism as I think it’s very situational based.  I definitely see how the concept of this theory can be considered morally “right” in some situations, but when it comes to scenarios where the lives of others are endangered, I don’t see how that is ethical.  In one of the Philosophy courses I took, the professor had provided our class with the example of five people stranded on an island. Four of the five people decided to kill and consume the fifth person in order to save the maximum number of lives. This example really stuck with me over the years because yes, I do see how this follows the Utilitarian theory as majority of the people stranded on the island were saved, which brought the most pleasure, but how is this morally right? I’m sure there could be the argument that the fifth person was already dying and they killed him or her in order to the person out their misery, but this may not always be the case. I don’t believe killing an innocent person in order to save the majority of others is morally right, especially if the person being killed has no say in this decision.  

-Alexa

References:

Reichlin, M. (2016). Hume and utilitarianism: another look at an age-old question. Journal of Scottish Philosophy, 14(1), 1-20. doi: 10.3366/jsp.2016.0111