Ethics is what defines
a person’s character. How a person should behave in the society.
But how do we justify
our acts as ethical? An idea suggests that an act is ethical if it is
benefiting the greatest number of people. While doing this, one is simply
benefiting the whole population rather than causing any sort of harm. That’s
why the laws set by government or the Holy dialects are considered to be
ethical and the code of conduct that should be followed by every individual.
In the field of
business, Utilitarianism applies to decision making. If the decision is
benefiting the whole company then that is opted and put into practiced immediately.
In the case of criminal justice we use this approach to test and set the
punishment for the criminals determining on their acts and how widely that act
effected the society.
All these normative
ethics are tested using the Utilitarian approach. This seems very simple to
claims one’s act to be ethical and is widely used in the practical world today.
Utilitarian ethics can be applied to pretty much anything, and
can shine when dealing with complex situations with multiple competing factors.
However, it is sometimes effortful and burdensome to deploy and its results can
be counter intuitive.
Let’s consider what
happens to the minority group? Did anyone notice that their rights are being harmed?
If looked from this perspective then this approach is unethical for all the
minority groups. We as humans have no control on someone else’s life. If that
business decision leads to other small businesses to be closed. Maybe that
criminal decision is not appropriate for everyone.
We all have heard about
the Nazi Hypothermia Experiment. In that a small group of people was picked and
tested with a drug. The scientists involved in this claimed that this drug
would serve as medicinal purpose and for finding a cure to severe diseases. But
the experiment failed and 300 people suffered. They were in pain, tortured and
devastated. Many of them died in the process. Was it ethical to do? Why those
300 people had to suffer? No answers were reported by the scientist.
Another example, the
most famous the blue whale game. That game had many levels and to pass any
level you must to the task asked to do. The tasks included cutting your wrist,
jumping from a cliff, hanging yourself from a fan and etc. These are those acts
widely performed by people who are a victim of depression and low self-esteem.
The creator of the game claimed that is was to eradicate all those people from
the society who are not benefiting the society. A good approach? According to
utilitarianism this would be ethical but this is the complete opposite case.
To conclude utilitarian
should not be the only approach used to claim anything ethical we must look
from every perspective, look if our acts are not taking someone else’s rights.
Then our acts would be ethical and moral.