Utilitarianism: Does Resolution Cause More Pain Or Pain?

The way people live their everyday lives can be very complicated to certain analysts. Yet. to others the decisions that a person will make is as simple as whether the resolution causes more pain or pleasure. This type of lifestyle decision making is known through the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a theory, in the simplest form of choosing pleasure over pain, established by Jeremy Bentham and further developed with other philosophers, most notably by John Stuart Mill. The use of utility can be calculated from multiple circumstances, ranging from the intensity to the extent of pain and pleasure that will be involved within the decision. A large controversial topic involving utilitarianism is terminal illness and whether euthanasia

47B) When calculating an action to see what course should be taken, the overall pleasure faces off with the overall pain. The value of pleasure and pain has seven different factors that will impact decision making. The first four basic influences are based upon the circumstances intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, and propinquity/remoteness. The next three factors are the fecundity (sameness), the purity (uniqueness), and the extent of a situation. The first four factors are considered each by themselves, yet fecundity and purity are important when the situation considers the tendency of the act. Extent refers to all that are affected by a circumstance. The calculation of these factors have a basic format that is understandable. Simply begin with the interest of the person who will be immediately affected by the situation. Then, consider all people and entities that branch off from that solitary person. Finally, sum up all the values of the pleasure and pain from all impacted and rely on the heavier side of the values. These values will be very relevant when dealing with terminal illness and what path should be

The moral issue within this journal is whether euthanasia, the killing of a patient suffering painfully and is doomed for death, is permissible if it is the only alternative option to horrible, excruciating pain. Terminal illness concerns the sanctity of life and the two sense of “life.” Arguments are given that say euthanasia is morally acceptable. For example, when a patient is terminally ill, that increases the amount of unhappiness in the world and to those surrounded by the patient. Therefore, killing the patient would increase the amount of happiness in the world, the key point of utility. Henceforth, euthanasia should be morally acceptable. On the other hand, more disagreements must be considered before forming a confident conclusion. For instance, maybe a person living a horribly sick life does not want his life to end because a dismal life is better than no life at all. This increases the pain in the world, henceforth, according to the principle of utility it would be best to end that person’s life. To most people with a conscience, however, that is very immoral if the sick person himself wants to live. That is taking away their freedom that they were born with. Also, miracles can and do happen. Restricting a critically ill patient from receiving a miracle is very immoral to me. Overall, this all relates to Bentham and utilitarianism very