Utilitarianism: The Survival Lottery Essay, Research Paper
It is better to give than to have. I believe I was approximately nine old ages old when I heard that statement for the first clip. It was in church. It was one of those things that I randomly chose to hear while sitting in church every Sunday. Normally anything that was said in that edifice ne’er made sense to me and I ne’er had any usage for retaining it. This clip nevertheless something did do sense to me. Possibly it was because my parents had been stating me that same thing except in a more equivocal and indirect mode. & # 8220 ; Isaac you should portion your playthings ; Isaac why Don & # 8217 ; t you give your nutrient to your sister if you don & # 8217 ; t want it? ; Isaac acquire your old plaything and apparels together so you can donate them to the Salvation Army. & # 8221 ; So as I grew up I had a slightly strong belief that it was better to give than to have. I am now 19 old ages of age and I have come to see that what I heard in that church ten old ages ago isn & # 8217 ; t ever needfully the true.
Harris claims utilitarianism as the footing of his thought, and in the existent context and definition of the term he is right. Harmonizing to Webster & # 8217 ; s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, ? 1996 Utilitarianism is defined as the philosophy that public-service corporation is the exclusive criterion of morality, so that the uprightness of an action is determined by its utility. Jeremy Bentham who is known as the laminitis of this theory elaborates that & # 8220 ; Torahs should be socially utile and the greatest felicity of the greatest figure should be the foundation of ethical motives and legislation. & # 8221 ; Harris & # 8217 ; thought in kernel follows the & # 8220 ; Guidelines & # 8221 ; of utilitarianism. The thought is advantageous to adult male as whole because of the fact that it maximizes the figure of lives saved. If this program that Harris has were to be implemented there decidedly would be a great figure of lives saved everyday.
Oppositions of the Survival Lottery might talk of the useful solution in a belittling tone. Harris could reason the fact that utilitarianism is a demanding moral place that frequently asks us to set aside opportunism for the remainder of society. Morality is about bring forthing good effects, non holding good purposes, so we should believe more along the lines of making whatever will convey the most benefit to all of humanity. Utilitarianism is concerned about effects, non purposes.
Harris & # 8217 ; thought of taking variety meats from people and donating them to the people who need them seems to be a utilitarianist position in nature, but it doesn & # 8217 ; t agree with what Bentham believed, which was that we should seek to incre
ase the overall sum of pleasance in the universe. Harris’ position doesn’t addition pleasance. Alternatively it seems to convey hurting. For the households and friends of the lottery victors there is an utmost sum of hurting and uncomfortableness. There is an statement that it can non perchance be right to take the life of a human being. A strong statement against the Survival Lottery is that it is a misdemeanor to the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which condemns cruel and unusual penalty. How can slay non be immoral? Citizens under a societal contract, agree non to kill merely because others besides agree non to kill. It is the map of penal Torahs to forestall slaying by showing to society that it is non in their best involvement to slaying.
The term utilitarianism is specifically applied to the proposition that the highest aim of a moral action is the accomplishment of the greatest felicity for the greatest figure. Normally the useful theory of moralss is opposed to ethical philosophies frequently brought into inquiry by that interior sense called the scruples. As a consequence Utilitarianism by and large disagrees with the position that moral determinations depend on the will of God. Surely there are things in life that are unreplaceable, such as? Life. What Harris is proposing that we sacrifice a few lives to continue many more. The inquiry that is being asked is such: Is it morally correct to take something that is every bit cherished and unreplaceable as a life from person even though many more lives would be saved? I believe that inquiry shouldn & # 8217 ; t even be asked. No human being has the right to take the life of another no affair the circumstance. It is unethical to kill period, no affair how you look at it.
Make to others as you would hold them make to you. This one Golden Rule would neither belie nor lie analogue to the Survival Lottery because the regulation applies to persons as opposed to society. For the most portion I can & # 8217 ; t believe of excessively many people that would desire to win the Survival Lottery and at the same clip I & # 8217 ; m certain they wouldn & # 8217 ; t wish such fortune to anyone else.
I am a truster in Utilitarianism to an extent. However I must state John Harris & # 8217 ; Survival Lottery is past that extent. This is because the thought goes against many of my values and beliefs such as the violent death of an guiltless individual. Reasoning I want to state that I do non stand for the whole of society and their general position of class, nevertheless this essay does take some of my personal beliefs into history. I use myself as a typical homo being and I feel my sentiments and concluding have cogency.