From what I understand from this weeks discussion involving the concept of utilitarianism, I have found myself asking several issues regarding the topic. Utilitarianism is defined as accomplishing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. The greatest amount of people part of the definition is not something that can really be argued because it is rather clear but as for the "greatest good" part, I have some questions on this aspecpt.
Who is to say what it "good?"
What if what someone finds good, others do not?
The story of Robin Hood came into my mind because although he was stealing from the rich, he provided plenty for the poor in great numbers. Some would say that he is wrong for stealing but in my point of view he was more of a hero than a theif. In this case one must compromise his sense of right and wrong in the way that although he was stealing from a few rich people, he gave a lot for the poor because to them, a little went a long way. In addition to this example, I found the in-class example interesting in the way that the group presenters over utilitarianism had the class deciding whether to save their child from an oncoming train or to save the 50 people on the train; killing the kid. I asked my mom this question after hearing responses on the discussion and she unhesitantly answered, "my kid." She told me her child would be her priority. I then decided to up the stakes and ask her, "What if there were 1,000 people on the train?" She shook her head and kept her same answer. It seems as if this rule of utilitarianism doesn't jive with a lot of people. Me being one of them.
Sure this rule comes in handy in some circumstances but it would be nuts to live by this rule all the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment