Utilitarianism is a viewpoint that decides on the moral value. The correctness or wrongness of an act based on its worth in creating pleasure or happiness for a large number of people. Contentment, on the other hand, is the only enviable end in the analysis of utilitarian. The doctrines of utilitarianism view happiness as an end that is desirable, while all the other things are meant to this end.In simple terms, the implication is that every single norm is justifiable so long as contentment is the end realized by such means. This study will present the moral and immoral acts perceived from a utilitarian point of view. The conclusion will offer a censure against the author’s point of view. In the excerpt, Consequences based utilitarian ethics fail to function, since the author forbids the existence of supererogation of a protagonist. In other words, people are obligated to conduct themselves inamannerthat will benefit other parties regardless of the hazard associated with the procedure. In this case, utilitarian phone service providers are willing to allow people to continue making phone calls while driving due to the huge returns involved despite the loss of life involved.
The author values the economic gain realized from drivers who make phone calls while driving. Based on research from some economists, the author has made the assumption that people who talk while driving contribute more to the economy contrary to those individuals who get hit by reckless drivers.Furthermore, the author has noted that from the economist’s point of view, the ban on using cell phones while on the road has no direct economic implication. Another supposition that the author has brought to light is the ability to compare the various types of costs besides each other on a comparable scale. Nevertheless, making comparisons in material gains such as money against intangible losses such as life is impractical since their individuality differs to such a huge coverage.
From a utilitarian viewpoint, I will be inclined to deviate from the author’s opinion. This is owing to the fact that the notion of utilitarianism aspires to demarcate which behavior is ethical and what is not, by taking into account the effectiveness of a specific act. The eventual decency, or the shortage of it, is evaluated by reflecting on all the features of the act that try to make the most out of helpful values against all those facets that aim to exploit the unhelpful values of that action. On a lighter note, utilitarianism detects that an action might be judged as ethical if it has been utmost constructive and the least unconstructive values. In this instance, the author’s approach is to let drivers to keep on driving while speaking on their cell phones. Such an action is wicked and in opposition to the principle of utilitarianism. Now, the idea of utilitarianism affirms that when faced by the predicament of deciding between two ills, go for the evil that is less significant. On the contrary, when confronted with the predicament of selecting between two merits, select the good quality that results in the bigger good.
As elucidated above, act utilitarianism is exclusively involved with attaining the utmost good. Based on this theory, a person’s civil rights might be violated upon to profit on a bigger population. This is to say that, act utilitarianism is not entirely concerned with fairness, profitability or self-sufficiency for a person if afflicting the person results to the answer that helps a majority of individuals. Another basis of insecurity in act utilitarianism is evident when a utilitarian confronts one set of unpredictable circumstances and then abruptly faces a transformation in those variables that makes her to alter her initial choice. This implies that an act utilitarian may perhaps be pleasant to you one instant and then detest you the next second since the variables have altered, and you are not of assistance to the majority people anymore.