Utilitarianism Utilitarian Ethics Was First

Utilitarianism

Utilitarian ethics was first invented by David Hume and later expanded by Jeremy Bentham (Rosenstand, 230). What this involves is that, when measured, the consequences of a certain action must follow the principle of the greatest possible good for all involved. When either choice has undesirable consequences, this principle dictates that whichever sacrifice is smaller should be made. This is what happens in the case of Marilyn and Barton.

Barton seems to be operating under the utilitarian ethical position. On the surface, this does appear to be the best course of action, since Marilyn will die regardless of whether she is sacrificed or not. If she is sacrificed, seven people live. If not, she along with the seven others die. Hence, the greatest good for the greatest amount of people is to hasten Marilyn's death for the good of the seven.

Under the circumstances, I do agree with Barton and his commander. It is simply a matter of reality that the ship could not spare any fuel for the extra person. The best course of action was to avoid the death of more than one innocent person by sacrificing only the one, regardless of her nature and her ignorance of the law or the consequences of her actions. Consequences do not change according to a person's knowledge of them. This is evident in the way that Marilyn accepts her fate. I would therefore probably do the same under the same circumstances, had I been in Barton's shoes.

If I were in Marilyn's shoes, I would perhaps have been more adamant to find a solution to my own annihilation. I do not think I could have accepted my own death so easily, or indeed, walked as calmly to the cell that was to be my final barrier to death. However, if I were to be told that this is truly the only way to save the lives of those involved, I could probably have accepted it, even if under greater protest than Marilyn.

The sympathetic natures of both Barton and his commander emphasizes the position that there was probably no other solution to the problem. However, if one applies imagination to the situation and creates probabilities that are not mentioned, one might be able to come up with alternatives to the problem.

The ship might, for example turn back and refuel or alternatively leave Marilyn at her station. This would be dependent upon the ability of the men who have fallen ill to survive. The story does not indicate the time that the men have to live. It is therefore possible that the ship could have turned back to its original destination. This would, however, also depend upon the destination to the beginning of the journey. According to the story, Marilyn's presence was not yet sufficiently significant to affect the fuel supply fatally. Hence, it might be reasonable to state that the ship would have made it back. The only barrier to this would probably have been the rules and regulations that dictated her death in the first place. I do feel, however, that an alternative solution could have been found in the interest of preserving not only one innocent life, but also the other seven in question.

In this light, Marilyn's moral rights may be said to be violated. In other words, it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person. However, in the same argument, one might as whether the moral right of the other seven persons involved are not also being violated. If Marilyn does not die, they will be killed. Even in being killed with them, Marilyn is also violating their moral rights. From her personal sense of morality, one might therefore say that the only moral choice she could make was to not kill the men by killing herself, even if her moral rights are being violated, as she did nothing to warrant being killed. Morally, one might therefore say that Marilyn's moral rights, from the viewpoint of utility, cannot be said to be worth more or less than the rights of those who would have died if she'd lived only a short time longer. From the moral viewpoint, it is therefore also better for her to die than to live.

Marilyn's fundamental rights have indeed been violated, as these dictate that every person has the right to life and therefore not to be killed without good reason. Marilyn did nothing beyond wanting to see her brother to warrant the death penalty. Her fundamental rights are therefore at issue here. The difference between this and her moral rights is that the latter also dictates one's life with other human beings. One has moral rights; however, these should not override the moral or fundamental rights of others. Marilyn's moral and fundamental rights were in conflict with those of others. She therefore used a moral basis from which to choose sacrificing herself for the life of others who would have died with her, had she not made this choice.

Narveson's main concern here is therefore that the utilitarian view does not necessarily preclude a view of moral or fundamental rights. Indeed, this story demonstrates that morality is at the basis of the utilitarian decision to sacrifice one innocent person so that seven innocent persons may live.

In this light, Rosenstand (p. 334) makes a distinction between negative and positive rights. According to some, human being should have only rights regarding what should not be done against a person. In other words, these are "noninterference rights." By boarding the ship, Marilyn affected the negative rights of those around her, even if she did not know that at the time. In this light, her continued presence on the ship would continue to interfere with their negative rights, even though her negative rights were being violated as a result of what she was required to do. Nevertheless, one might also argue that Marilyn's negative rights expired as soon as she boarded the ship, because this would have ultimately resulted in death.

A positive right, according to Rosenstand (p. 334), is one that involves the government's and others' obligation to sustain one's life actively by providing in one's needs and requirements. In Marilyn's case, these rights are violated by Barton and the commander. Marilyn is required to sacrifice her life to sustain those of others. Her positive right to life is therefore not fulfilled. By following the rules, Barton actively violates this right of hers. However, from the viewpoint of the men he is to serve with medication, he is actively promoting their positive right to life, because he is making every effort to reach them not only in good time, but also by reaching them with the ship intact. This is also something that Marilyn does with her sacrifice. She takes action in order to promote their right to life, even as her own positive right to life is being violated.

According to Marxism, the right to sustained life should be promoted by the state for every citizen. This was the fundamental basis of the Marxist state. However, in the case of Marilyn and the seven men, their basic right to life is in direct conflict with each other. This returns the matter to the utilitarian view, where neither choice is desirable and therefore the less undesirable path needs to be taken.

The main problem with the utilitarian view is that human beings and their concepts of morality are generally arbitrary. An ethical view tends to be dictated by a person's personal sense of values as well as the concepts that are generally regarded as ethical during any specific time. From today's point-of-view, for example, killing a stowaway for whatever reason would never be ethically justifiable, unless such a person is violent and endangers the life of the discoverer. Life is something that everybody has a right to.

In terms of the past, however, it was also true that prostitutes and children were not regarded as persons and hence had not rights. Animals had even fewer rights. During those times, the utilitarian view would have extended the "good" only to those considered as persons in the context of the time.

This is another weakness associated with utilitarian ethics. It is highly dependent upon context and upon the decision maker in any given situation, context, and time. Today, animals, children, and even prostitutes are considered to be deserving of human rights. In making decisions, the individual therefore considers the best possible outcome for the most possible beings, including animals.