One of the quotes in the reading goes as follows: "...for that standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether."
When I first read the utilitarian theory, I originally thought it was attempting to say that the standard was the agent's own greatest happiness, of which I thought, okay, what if murdering people made me happy? How would that be conducive to society? As I continued reading I understood he was saying that the standard would have to encompass the greatest amount of happiness together. Which made me think, okay what if we lived in a society where murder made most people happy. Under my interpretation of utilitarianism murder would then be accepted because it amounts to happiness, but if that is the case, is ethics and morality important? If something makes the common good happy and is pleasurable to them, yet is morally wrong, would it then be okay? Where is the line drawn? How is happiness truly defined?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.