I'd like to focus on the second half of this video, where utilitarianism was discussed in depth with the background example of the cannibalism case of four English sailors in the 19th century.
Utilitarianism seems to be a subset of consequentialism- the potential consequences of an act are examined and weighed against each other in order to make a 'moral' decision. This opposes categoricalism, where morality is determined through certain responsibilities and rights that each human has, regardless of potential consequences.
I would like to shift away from the topic of cannibalism, but move to a topic that has similar moral dilemmas; the topic which I did my Oral on last year- drone strikes in Pakistan. This seems to be a very utilitarian strategy of the CIA's- to protect millions of Americans at the expense of a comparatively few Pakistanis. While this seems to make sense- an entire nation is being protected from a 'threat', the morality of the execution of the action is not justified to me. While this may be due to certain patriotic feelings to Pakistan, I do not think that this is entirely the case.
Whenever there are examples of utilitarianism being given, I have the impression that people always give the example that there are a certain number of people versus one. But what if it is not only one person suffering? Would utilitarianism be justified if it were 4 people who had to die to save 5? what if it is a civil war where two ethnic groups are fighting, one represents a 51% majority and the other a 49% minority. Would the killing of 49% of a nation's people to 'protect' the other 51% be justified?
There are not precise numbers of how many Pakistanis have been killed in drone strikes in Waziristan, some estimates say many hundred, some even say a few thousand. Does the reliability of the statistics make a difference? Would opinions change if it was told that thousands died instead of hundreds? One of the issues raised by a student in Michael Sandel's lecture was whether cannibalism would be justified if the victim was asked for permission. It is said by some sources that during his army regime, President Musharraf did apparently allow the CIA to send drones to northern Pakistan in the FATA region. Does this still make killing innocent Pakistanis justified for the 'greater good'? And does it matter who gave the consent? It was different in the cannibalism case, as the student said that the victim should be consulted and asked for permission. But in the drone strikes' case, none of the northern Pakistanis were asked if they could have explosives dropped on them and drones circling and spying 24/7, the corrupt American puppet of an army regime was the one who gave the consent. Therefore the question is raised as to what the different degrees of morality are and how they differ depending on who gives permission for an action.
The first of the three questions that were raised at the end was "Do we have certain fundamental rights?" I have always been a firm believer in the idea that anyone is free to do what they want as long as it does not deny someone else of their rights. But after thinking about this more, I have realized that this is not a realistic idea, as everyone will always have an excuse to blame someone for imposing on their rights. Therefore I am even more at a loss than ever at trying to understand what our fundamental rights are are how we can ensure that they are respected. I personally think that it is a direct violation of human rights to spy on people from circling aircraft and to instantly kill people without even any thought of a trial if they are seen to do something even remotely suspicious, and to justify the death of innocent people as doing it for a 'greater cause.'
But, as many still argue, in essence drone strikes in Pakistan are moral if we look at them in a utilitarian perspective just as cannibalism can by many people be completely justified. But I myself do not believe that the utilitarian approach is in any way fit to judge what moral actions to be taken. Not everything is about measuring gain against loss, there are deeper things at play. But the problem is that these 'deeper' things are so subjective to each person, that it would be impossible to take any action if every individual's circumstances were to be taken into consideration.
Having said that, however much more 'utility' a certain action may have over another, I do not think that we have any right over deciding the fate of another individual- this is the problem I see with utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism seems to be a subset of consequentialism- the potential consequences of an act are examined and weighed against each other in order to make a 'moral' decision. This opposes categoricalism, where morality is determined through certain responsibilities and rights that each human has, regardless of potential consequences.
I would like to shift away from the topic of cannibalism, but move to a topic that has similar moral dilemmas; the topic which I did my Oral on last year- drone strikes in Pakistan. This seems to be a very utilitarian strategy of the CIA's- to protect millions of Americans at the expense of a comparatively few Pakistanis. While this seems to make sense- an entire nation is being protected from a 'threat', the morality of the execution of the action is not justified to me. While this may be due to certain patriotic feelings to Pakistan, I do not think that this is entirely the case.
Whenever there are examples of utilitarianism being given, I have the impression that people always give the example that there are a certain number of people versus one. But what if it is not only one person suffering? Would utilitarianism be justified if it were 4 people who had to die to save 5? what if it is a civil war where two ethnic groups are fighting, one represents a 51% majority and the other a 49% minority. Would the killing of 49% of a nation's people to 'protect' the other 51% be justified?
There are not precise numbers of how many Pakistanis have been killed in drone strikes in Waziristan, some estimates say many hundred, some even say a few thousand. Does the reliability of the statistics make a difference? Would opinions change if it was told that thousands died instead of hundreds? One of the issues raised by a student in Michael Sandel's lecture was whether cannibalism would be justified if the victim was asked for permission. It is said by some sources that during his army regime, President Musharraf did apparently allow the CIA to send drones to northern Pakistan in the FATA region. Does this still make killing innocent Pakistanis justified for the 'greater good'? And does it matter who gave the consent? It was different in the cannibalism case, as the student said that the victim should be consulted and asked for permission. But in the drone strikes' case, none of the northern Pakistanis were asked if they could have explosives dropped on them and drones circling and spying 24/7, the corrupt American puppet of an army regime was the one who gave the consent. Therefore the question is raised as to what the different degrees of morality are and how they differ depending on who gives permission for an action.
The first of the three questions that were raised at the end was "Do we have certain fundamental rights?" I have always been a firm believer in the idea that anyone is free to do what they want as long as it does not deny someone else of their rights. But after thinking about this more, I have realized that this is not a realistic idea, as everyone will always have an excuse to blame someone for imposing on their rights. Therefore I am even more at a loss than ever at trying to understand what our fundamental rights are are how we can ensure that they are respected. I personally think that it is a direct violation of human rights to spy on people from circling aircraft and to instantly kill people without even any thought of a trial if they are seen to do something even remotely suspicious, and to justify the death of innocent people as doing it for a 'greater cause.'
But, as many still argue, in essence drone strikes in Pakistan are moral if we look at them in a utilitarian perspective just as cannibalism can by many people be completely justified. But I myself do not believe that the utilitarian approach is in any way fit to judge what moral actions to be taken. Not everything is about measuring gain against loss, there are deeper things at play. But the problem is that these 'deeper' things are so subjective to each person, that it would be impossible to take any action if every individual's circumstances were to be taken into consideration.
Having said that, however much more 'utility' a certain action may have over another, I do not think that we have any right over deciding the fate of another individual- this is the problem I see with utilitarianism.