Utilitarianism The Right Thing To Do

The concept of Utilitarianism is simple to describe, yet difficult to conclude. All decisions involving Utilitarianism, are situational and depend on what option will bring forth the greatest amount of end-all happiness. As claimed in The Right Thing to Do, “If one of the two is, by those who are competently acquainted with both, placed so far above the other that they prefer it, even though knowing it to be attended with a greater amount of discontent…we are justified in ascribing to the preferred enjoyment a superiority in quality, so far outweighing quantity as to render it, in comparison, of small account” (Rachels, 2015). Essentially, what is meant when that is said, is that importance does not depend solely on quantity or quality, it

In the organ transplant case, the people conspiring to take the person’s organs, are not considering the well-being of everyone involved. Just because his organs will be helping five others, does not mean it will not be hurting him, his family, and his friends. This claim goes against universalism. Another component of Utilitarianism to account for, is the well-being of all as a total. Hypothetically of course, if the healthy man was the only person to hold the cure to cancer, and the doctors used him for his organs to help the other five people, the overall welfare in total would not be fulfilled, because in not having that cure, many more than five would die from cancer. Also, to ensure the “ultimate end”, we would have to consider whether the five people and/or the one healthy man would be a danger or a benefit to the aggregate of all. The trolley case is similar in that it is also situational, and there are more factors than just quantity or quality to account for. Again, we would have to determine the status of the individuals involved and decide which decision would bring the greatest welfare related to the aggregate of

In the transplant case, the doctors are the decision makers, and in the trolley case, the decision would be up to a random person not on the trolley. Because none of the people who have the possibility of death, are given a voice, there is an issue in both situations. Technically, the fact that the doctors in the transplant case are deciding the fate of the people, does not matter when deciding the right thing to do using Utilitarianism, because either way, the greater welfare as an aggregate of all people is going to be accounted for. Plainly, the two cases are similar in that they both involve issues of quantity versus quality, the well-being of each individual involved should be examined, and also, the welfare of all individuals, as a whole. In both cases, the quantities are the same, therefore if Utilitarianism was not present, our natural moral instincts, without knowledge of the situation, would be to save as many humans as we possibly can. However, we are unsure of the qualities, therefore this is what makes each difficult to