Utilitarianism is a well-known ethical theory, which determines wrong from right through a focus on outcomes. It propagates that ethical actions are those that result in the maximum happiness in a specific set of circumstances. American public policy today is largely centered around the principle of utilitarianism with most campaigns, projects and initiatives undertaken being those that are meant to produce the maximum possible happiness or the greatest possible good for the largest number of people (Mill, 2016). This essay analyzes the value of the ethical theory of utilitarianism with reference to a given scenario, where a man is expected to hunt down a terrorist to save five thousand adult lives, but who is more than likely to end up killing seventy-five American children studying at an elementary school in the process. The essay concludes that while utilitarianism provides a good framework for important American policy decisions today, it is ethically quite unsound as it violates natural rights upon implementation.
According to the theory of Utilitarianism, the most ethical choice, is one which leads to the best possible outcome for the largest portion of a population or for the largest number of people in a given situation. It is a moral framework that is very commonly used to provide justification for hostile and violent activities especially war or the use of military force. It is also quite commonly used to carry out moral reasoning in business activities primarily because of the manner in which it accounts for benefits and costs (Frey, 2013). With reference to the mentioned scenario, when a man has to choose between killing five thousand adults by dropping an explosive at the right location and killing seventy American school children, which will happen for sure if the explosive is dropped at that particular situation, the ethical dilemma faced by the man is a significant one (Anderson & Anderson, 2016). Utilitarianism will tell him to get the job done, as by dropping an explosive at a strategic location, he will be killing only seventy five American school going children but saving as many as five thousand adult Americans. He will be saving more lives than the number of lives that he takes as a consequence of his action (Rosas & Koenigs, 2014). His action will have positive consequences for a larger section of the American population and fatal consequences for a very minor segment of the American people. Against the background of utilitarian theory, his action will be one that is fully justified as what he ends up doing will benefit or cause happiness and comfort for the maximum number of people in the given circumstances.
However, since the future is something that is difficult to predict, and since it is hard to know for sure whether actions can have good or bad consequences, utilitarianism as a moral theory is quite limited. It is also an ethical theory that is incapable of accounting for values like justice as well as individual rights. Again, with reference to the given scenario, it is important to note, that by dropping the explosive at the strategic location, the man will be preventing a terrorist from claiming five thousand adult American lives, but in doing so he himself will be claiming the lives of seventy-five innocent American children. These children were simply attending classes at a preliminary school and do not deserve to die in the least, (Gleichgerrcht & Young, 2013). The right to life is a fundamental human right and it should be protected at all costs in any given situation. So while utilitarian theory will tell him to carry out his duty, and work for the greater good, this theory will not tell him to pay heed to the rights of the children. It will not provide him with the moral basis needed to ensure justice for them, simply because they are numerically inferior to the adult Americans in the stated scenario. In this sense, the theory of utilitarianism can hardly be regarded as an ethical one. It will secure justice for many but will willingly allow injustice to happen for some. The theory of utilitarianism bears a striking similarity to the Machiavellian logic of the end justifying the means. The means undertaken to achieve an end, can be justified, no matter how brutal or unethical, if the end, or the objective is accomplished (Asao & Buss, 2016).
American public policy is conveniently shaped by utilitarianism as it gives the American state the philosophical basis to carry out brutal, violent and unethical tasks in the name of the greater good (Hausman et al., 2016). Wars are waged, military campaigns undertaken and cruel policies that discriminate the majority from the minority in American society by riding on the moral theory of utilitarianism. In truth though, there is no moral or ethical basis at all for such policies. Utilitarianism fails to protect and respect natural rights, so it can hardly be regarded as an ethical theory. In the given scenario, the man given the task of dropping an explosive will be foiling terrorist plans and saving many Americans, but he will still not be a hero in this situation. In fact he will be marked out to be as cruel as the terrorist, as to save so many lives, he had to brutally and unethically, take away the lives of a few American children (Waldo, 2017).
Thus, with reference to the scenario given, it is safe to conclude that American policy decisions that are framed by utilitarianism are those that seem to have a sound basis because they protect a large section of the American population, but they actually violate natural human rights. Such decisions are far from ethical, since these sanction the execution of illegal and unethical activities to be carried out against a minor section of the population, all for the greater good.
References
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2014, July). GenEth: A General Ethical Dilemma Analyzer. In AAAI (pp. 253-261).
Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2016). The tripartite theory of machiavellian morality: Judgment, influence, and conscience as distinct moral adaptations. In The evolution of morality (pp. 3-25). Springer, Cham.
Frey, R. G. (2013). Act?utilitarianism. The Blackwell guide to ethical theory, 219-237.
Gleichgerrcht, E., & Young, L. (2013). Low levels of empathic concern predict utilitarian moral judgment. PloS one, 8(4), e60418.
Hausman, D., McPherson, M., & Satz, D. (2016). Economic analysis, moral philosophy, and public policy. Cambridge University Press
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383). Routledge.
Rosas, A., & Koenigs, M. (2014). Beyond “utilitarianism”: Maximizing the clinical impact of moral judgment research. Social neuroscience, 9(6), 661-667.
