Utilitarian Perspective on Ethics

¶ … Utilitarian perspective on ethics Utilitarian ethics proposes that actions are considered right or wrong according to the greatest amount of people that they help and/or make happy. The two foremost pioneers of the theory were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill although Utilitarianism, in some form, always existed started off with hedonism and Aristotle (each of whom advocated different forms of eudemonia / contentment / happiness).

Branches of classical utilitarianism are 'Ideal utilitarianism'; act and rule utilitarianism (where rules are involved); two-level utilitarianism (that differentiates between act and rule); and preference utilitarianism (where the actual act of choosing depends on the preferences of the individual). Still other strands include Negative Utilitarianism (that focuses on what not to do); and motive utilitarianism (where acts are chosen according to those which give the greatest deal of felicity). A recent case in the news perfectly showcases the principle of utilitarian ethics in practice.

At the same time, it shows us the difference between deontological ethics and utilitarian approach. (Deontological ethics place the focus on obligatory principles of right and wrong; practicing certain principles because you are morally obligated to do so. Kantian imperative and the Biblical commands are examples of this.) Jason Ellsworth, a U.S. commander, was killed whilst serving in Iraq in 2005. His father wished to make a memorial for him and, therefore, asked Yahoo for access to his e-mail correspondence whilst in Iraq.

Yahoo refused citing their contract of privacy with users. The case was brought to court, and Ellsworth won. Controversy ensued that made front lines in many papers. On the one hand, readers argued that Yahoo was right: it had promised confidentiality to its users and could not break that promise, come what may. On the other hand, there were others who argued that the family may profit from release of correspondence and that, therefore, it should be transmitted.

(HU, 2004) The furor reflects the representation of the utilitarian argument as well as the conflict between deontological and utilitarian perspectives. Individuals who stood up for Yahoo indicated partisanship to the deontological in that they insisted that Yahoo had to -- was morally obligated -- to keep its word. Those who condemned Yahoo and supported Ellsworth practiced the Utilitarian approach in that they asserted that more people would be made happy by release of the e-mail than were the e-mail to be kept from them.

They pointed to other internet providers such as Hotmail, Gmail and AOL that transfer the e-mail correspondence to the family of the deceased upon death of the deceased. They also maintained that: E-mail has become a source of information about soldiers on the front lines. Images of the war and correspondences to loved ones have helped paint a picture of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, while helping families stay in touch with loved ones serving abroad.

(Hu, 2005) And that: "Soldiers killed in action may also have important information in their e-mail accounts to help families settle personal matters, such as closing out accounts or other housekeeping matters." (ibid) These make the crunch of the Utilitarian argument. Legal cases on the subject, such as Darrow and Ferrara (2005), have argued on both sides, and have also referred to situations of clear utilitarian import where release of the private correspondence may serve the benefits of an exponential amount of people.

Take the case, for instance, of a hypothetical Freud who may be writing his theories to a correspondent via e-mail. This Freud dies. The only way that his theories will become known is by publication of the e-mails. Countless -- in fact, an infinite amount of people -- will profit by release of these e-mails. When compared to the one individual, namely Freud, it is more important (utilitarians argue) that the mass receive advantage.

E-mail too can be compared to a first class letter and the utilitarian import of publicizing the letter can be seen from a precedent where In re Mc-Cormick's Estate a military serviceman, who was later killed in action, sent a letter to his minor children. That the letter was valuable only came to light when a motion picture company and a music publishing company contracted for the rights to use the letter.

The money was divided between the mother and the children with the children gaining the greater part and the court determining that the proceeds from the sale of the physical letters, should that occur in the future, would belong to the children alone. Many people, in this case, benefitted from one letter. One person may suffer (in that he may not wish his correspondence to be publicized). This, however, is outrivaled by the fact that many others have been made happy.

Utilitarianism takes the happiness and consequences of the many into account as opposed to the pleasure of the one or the few. In that way, it can prove advantageous since it calculates the greatest good for the many. However, there are many problems with Utilitarianism and these famously consist in the facts that it is difficult to define 'happiness' and 'pleasure'. The famous example is that many people in Germany were able to expand their territory by slaughtering a minority.

Should this be done even though a greater amount of people profit as compared to the relative few who suffer? Utilitarianism, therefore, is said to be a philosophy that ignored justice. Secondly, sometimes short-term happiness needs to be surrendered in order to obtain a.