User talk:Atcovi/Ethics/Lecture5

Discussion Prompt
According to utilitarianism, the morally correct action is the one that "generates the most happiness for the most amount of people". Using Bentham's or Mill's understanding of the theory, cite an example of a moral action that you believe generates the greatest amount of good for people but also causes harm to others. Explain how the action will achieve the greatest good and justify why harming others is acceptable from this position. Are there any counter-examples to your position? Explain why or why not. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Utilitarianism is the consequentialist ethical principle that puts an emphasis on the majority's satisfaction at the expense of the minority's dissatisfaction. An incident that I can bring up to perfectly explain the concept of hedonistic utilitarianism is the 1945 bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki. I personally have no well-thought opinion on this event, but from the perspective of the Americans, this was an action that totally ruined a significant minority at the expense of the American/Western population.


 * The 1945 Japan bombing was an extreme but successful attempt at putting a complete stop to WWII. In response to the Pearl Harbor attack & advancing Japanese hostilities, the US dropped two major bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. The devastating attack resulted in the deaths of over 100K people, including civilians. Even today, the bombings are up to debate on whether or not the attack was justified at the expense of innocent lives.


 * From the American perspective, this attack was justified because this attack (done in "self-defense") possibly prevented the deaths of triple the amount dead from the bombings. The Japanese were known to be relentless in their pursuit of war, so the only way to stop them was to attack the inner heart of the country - even if innocents were going to be at the end of the stick. The "greater good", in this situation, was the prevention of more deaths and the end of the war.


 * A counter-example is that this would be situational and, regardless, the killing of innocents should never be condoned - despite wartimes. Over 100K people lost their families and generations were wiped out by this atrocious attack. According to the Japanese & especially the victim, the "greater good" is not justifiable in killing their innocent folk.  The "greatest amount of people" is subjective as well - who are the people we are calculating in this case? Also - this brings up the point of Nazis vs. Jews... even the majority of Germans sided with exterminating Jews, does this mean that this is a moral correction decision to wipe out a whole race of people? These counter-examples proves the flaws in utilitarianism.
 * —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)