Greatest Happiness Principle Essay

When faced with the decision of whether or not to kill ones self, the deontological thinker would argue using the categorical imperative, saying that in order to act morally one must do as if their actions were to become universal law. If this is the case then making the decision to end ones own life is egregiously immoral because by doing so the person would be forcing all other rational beings to do the same. However a consequentialist would state that if the person is causing more pain and suffering to themselves and those around them alive than they would dead, then it would be beneficial to the world as whole for them to complete the action. The perspective of a deontologist with this dilemma may seem be a bit contradictory. This is

Within those consequences, the most important factor is the level of happiness. This is labeled as the Greatest Happiness Principle. The principle states that a person should always act in order to yield the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. There is argument over the importance of quantity of happiness versus the quality of that happiness and the sources of these pleasures however this doesn’t necessarily effect this debate. This is because in order to have a definitive answer the man must qualify for both. The defining factor according to these ideals is whether or not the man by whatever means, causes a larger amount of pain and less happiness in both quality and quantity while alive than he would if he killed himself. If it is true that his life does not benefit the aggregate happiness of people then in the consequentialist view it would be permissible and morally acceptable for the man to kill

Firstly, I side with the deontologist when it comes to determining whether or not an action is moral. I or any other person could put for all of the effort that we could possibly muster however their are still plenty of factors that go in to the outcome of an action that are uncontrollable. Enough so that it is not fair to judge the morality of a person solely on the consequences of their decisions. I recognize that any person can claim and lie about having good intentions however this doesn’t effect whether or not the actually do. Their morality or immorality is not determined by myself but instead by themselves what they choose to believe. I don 't necessarily though believe in the categorical imperative. There are too many situations in which acting in accordance to it is almost if not completely impossible. Such as a rich person giving a homeless man $100. Not only can not everyone access that or any homeless person within a reasonable amount of effort, and not only can many people not afford to give that amount, but that man can’t give himself $100. These two beliefs do leave me open to morally allowing suicide, but it is actually the argument of the consequentialists that convinces me believe