Examples Of Utilitarianism

Overall, I do believe that my moral code is based on utilitarian views. I believe everyone should be free to be who they want to be, do what they want to do and choose their own life. Below, I will go through some different aspects of the utilitarian view that apply to me and what I believe I would do based on my moral code in certain situations.

With the decision to have sex, Utilitarian ethics insist on having consent. I absolutely agree with this and sex without consent would be completely against my moral code. There should absolutely be no sex without consent. The views support freedom of sex before marriage if there is an understanding of the consequences. For example, the understanding of a child or a disease. Both parties have to see what could potentially happen and understand that everything could change by this one decision. Consequences are a reason that a Utilitarian believes that prostitution should be legal. There are consequences and harmful behavior that could be happening due to prostitution. Under my moral code, there shouldn’t be prostitution as it is dangerous and unhealthy. If prostitution were to be legal in more states or around the world, we need to

make it more safe and less harmful to anyone involved around the world.
With love comes marriage, and I am open to marriage. If both parties are truly happy and believe that is what they want to do within their relationship, then they should be able to do what they wish. Marriage is about love and happiness. There shouldn’t be a line where one gender is okay to marry one and not the other. Gay marriage should be supported and accepted everywhere. There has to be an understanding, within any marriage, that it takes work. There is no easy marriage. It takes time and devotion. Happiness is something that should be always prevalent in a marriage. If there is something that is missing in the marriage, or if there has to be an end to the relationship, divorce is an option. It is better to be happy within yourself and others then be committed into a marriage that is not fulfilling the persons.
Under my moral code abortion should be accepted when it is for the good of the people involved. There are too many circumstances that change with each woman that there cannot be a straight forward yes or no. I agree with this view. Women should have a choice based on their personal life. I don’t believe in a law making that decision for women. Rape is a major factor that plays into abortion. How could the government state that a woman that is raped is not allowed to have an abortion? That is absolutely absurd. Another part of abortion is when a woman is not ready to be a mother. Abortion shouldn’t be a way out, but if a woman is truly not ready to be a mother and not ready to give a child the best life they could give, they should have that choice. A child deserves to be brought up in a way that can be the best that parents can give. Yes, some children aren’t raised in the best environments, but most of the time the parents are trying their hardest.
In relative terms to abortion, there is euthanizing. Euthanizing isn’t commonly accepted or practiced, but it may be in later years. There are plenty of events that can be better with the option of euthanizing. For example, if I ever found out that my child had Zika Virus, I would euthanize him/her. During pregnancy, an ultrasound in the second or early third trimester can detect microcephaly. I believe that the outcome of having microcephaly would be so detrimental to the baby that they would never live a healthy life. It would be incredibly hard on me, but I would rather be honest with myself and truly help my child than have them live the kind of life I know they would live. The reason why babies have the microcephaly effect is due to growth. In the womb, a baby’s skull and head grow at the rate that their brain grows. With microcephaly, the baby’s brain doesn’t grow as a normal child’s would. This leads to the head not fully growing either. Since the head and brain are not developed normally, the baby can have side effects such as: “seizures, developmental delay, such as problems with speech or other developmental milestones, intellectual disability, problems with movement and balance, feeding problems, hearing loss, and vision problems.” (CDC).
On the other end of euthanizing, there is a chance with technology today that in the future, you may have the option to change your child by altering their DNA instead of the only option being ending your child’s life. If my child was born with asthma and there was a way to fix it, along with minor problems that may have been developed, I wouldn’t change them. Asthma is something that is treatable and the effects can be reduced with medication. There are plenty of different stages, but all have a treatment of some sort. I know quite a few people that have mild to severe asthma and they go about life perfectly. There are some complications and medication can be expensive, but there is no stopping them. They don’t let asthma hold them back. I believe my child would be the same. There is nothing that should hold them back either. I would teach them to make the best of it and to be strong. On the other hand, if I found that there was something that was untreatable and could affect my child’s life, I potentially would edit their DNA. This is something that is scary to me. I would be changing my child’s life forever, but it may be necessary. I wouldn’t want to risk my child having a life-damaging trait to change their life forever. There are some imperfections that a child could have that their life would be better without. At that point, there would be a discussion with the father and I if we should edit their DNA. I trust that this decision would be something that most people would agree with. Every parent wants the “perfect child” and any parent would give anything they can to make their child’s life the best that they can.
Part of my moral code is doing the best for the greater amount of people.

This reflects to my thoughts on capital punishment and deterrence. I believe the deterrence of capital punishment can potentially work on a case-by-case basis only. Do first-time offenders truly deserve the death penalty for an act of anger? The criminal could be a successful, respectful person that simply started the wrong fight with a man in the bar. On the other hand, multiple offenders are never going to stop and will do everything they can to continue. They don’t see a future for themselves and never will. Is that an adequate reason for them to be given an opportunity to ending their life? This is the reason for my decision of capital punishment being a successful deterrent being based on the criminal and by

case.
Another situation that I put my moral code to test is when I could possibly hold the President of Syria’s wife to my advantage. If I was the leader of the rebel forces against Syria and I had the President’s wife, I would hold her for ransom. Ransom money wouldn’t fix any problems, so instead I would only give her back on the fact that President Bashar al-Assad had signed a treaty or agreement to end all terrorism, war, and killing. If President Bashar al-Assad loves and cares for his wife to the extent that it says he does, then I believe it would work out to my advantage. There would be less bloodshed and more positive movement within the country. There would be no harm done to Asma al-Assad due to the hope that this would prove good faith and provide some trust between the two parties. Only after a signed agreement is in hand, will I hand over Asma. Overall, there’s a way to keep people safe and to help the country without hurting or killing Asma and I believe that is what my plan will do. There needs to be less harm and killing in this world. Even though Asma would have fallen into my hands, that doesn’t make it okay to fight evil with evil. There would be a lot of negotiation involved, but it would be worth it in the end. Sometimes there is no way for an eye-for-an-eye to work out in your favor. This is the ultimate decision that would take many hours or days to think through in order to achieve the perfect plan, but in the end there would be the result that would be the best conclusion for the greatest amount of people. My moral code involves no violence. Violence is never the answer in any situation.
In conclusion, everyone should be free to live their own life as long as it doesn’t affect others or use others for a means to an end. My moral code is directly related to utilitarian views in this aspect. The above aspects and situations in the view of my utilitarian ideals are things that I truly agree with and believe that others should agree and live by the same ideals. The world needs more love and acceptance for what people believe in and want to be.