Contemporary moral issues and ethical frameworks

Utilitarianism

Contemporary moral issues-Utilitarianism

An immediate challenge of living that is linked not only to the quality of life but also to the nature of our experiences is decision making. Everyday individuals have decisions to make and many of these decisions are of a multidimensional nature. The complexity of decision making often paralyzes some individuals because of indecision. They are afraid of the consequences because the consequences are unclear and the path to clarity obscure. Philosophical positions attempt to assist in clarifying decision making through multiple approaches. In this paper I will demonstrate that the most useful philosophical approach to decision making for the individual is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism and Virtue Theory because of its simplicity and the clarity it brings to the decision making process.

There are multiple utilitarian positions and these will be considered briefly at this point in the debate. The two most dominant types of utilitarianism are act and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism when the individual is presented with choices the first consideration must be the possible consequences of the available actions to the individual. The person then chooses the action that they believe will produce the best results for the largest number of persons. The focus here is always on "the greater good." The actor consequently must have the analytical prowess to anticipate the outcome of specific actions and the ability to assess those outcomes in comparison to the alternatives. The alternative that is perceived to result in the most benefit for the most persons is the appropriate choice. Act utilitarianism is the type of utilitarianism that I favor and will be the basis of my comparative assessment of the other philosophical positions.

There are other utilitarian models available to the individual. Rule utilitarianism is highly deductive in its approach to decision making. With rule utilitarianism the actor examines a potential set of life rules as the basis of action. The actor postulates the possible outcomes that will result from adhering to a particular set of rules. If sticking with a specific rule will result in more good or pleasure then that rule should be followed continuously. The immediate concern with rule utilitarianism that limits its usefulness is that, it is virtually impossible to construct rules that are general enough to encompass all of the potential situations the individual encounters in life. This is primarily because to do so would require a degree of clairvoyance that humans lack. Consequently rule utilitarianism fails when following the rule becomes counter intuitive and against the greater good. An example of this would be if you develop a rule against taking human life and you are faced with an aggressor who seeks your life or that of a family member following that rule will not result in greater happiness for you and your family. Under such conditions rule utilitarianism fails. This reality was acknowledged by John Stuart Mill who advocated a more moderate form of rule utilitarianism which suggests that there are circumstances where the rules can be broken. This caveat effectively reduces rule utilitarianism to act utilitarianism. There are other dimensions to the utilitarianism debate such as motive utilitarianism, which is often constituted as a hybrid of act and rule utilitarianism. Additionally, negative utilitarianism which considers the least harm, they will not be given consideration in this work.

Kantianism is a competitor to act utilitarianism. In Kantianism the focus is not on the outcome or the consequences of the action but rather on the act itself. Behaviors are engaged in because of the value in the behavior itself and for no other reason. The immediate and most obvious issue with this position is the determination of what is a thing in itself. Most people are highly concrete in their decision making and Kant invites a highly conceptual if not metaphysical approach to addressing what to do. Additionally, moral values are anchored ultimately in the outcomes of the actions and not in the rationality of the action. At the level of the material actions matter because of their outcomes and not because of some rational value that is added to them. In this regard act utilitarianism is superior because it determines action based on the material outcomes that may be anticipated by the actor. Actions should be engaged in because they actually benefit others.

Unlike Kantianism, Virtue Theory focuses on the character and virtue of an actor who might engage in the specific behavior. The individual is required to behave as a virtuous person would in a similar situation. While this removes the focus from the action to the actor as the source of moral determination it presents a new quandary. The new quandary revolves around determining whose virtues and character should become the template for action. Consequently, each individual is allowed to develop their personal set of characteristics that may be conflicting with each other. This mystifies the decision making process instead of making it simpler and clearer.

If we apply each philosophical position to solving the trolley problem the superiority of act utilitarianism becomes evident. In the classical trolley problem, a trolley is careening out of control down a track. There are five individuals who have been strapped to the track by an insane philosopher. You could engage a switch that will lead the trolley to a different path and save the individuals, in doing so however you would kill a single individual who is tied to that track.