One example of where the good of society is favored over the good of the individual is in the case of motorcycle helmet laws. The federal government put pressure on the states in the 1970’s to make motorcyclists wear helmets (Jones & Bayer, 2007). Motorcyclists asserted that these statutes infringed upon their rights to ride their motorcycles as they wished and was unfair because any potential harm would be borne only by the motorcyclists themselves (Bayer, 2007). Nevertheless, rarely were the statutes overturned in court system (Bayern, 2007). Furthermore, a court in Massachusetts stated that a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet who is injured in a wreck becomes the burden of the rest of society who must contribute to his or her medical
Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of Utilitarianism, believed his philosophy could provide for the “greatest happiness of the greatest number of people”. However benign it may sound, at the heart of Utilitarianism is a cold, teleological process which reduces happiness to a mere commodity. It is even worse that Saul Alinsky would extend this philosophy to a point where the truth becomes relative, justice becomes a tool of those powerful enough to wield it, and any means are justified to reach one’s desired ends.
... so is sacrificial to one’s rights, it puts them in an undesirable position where they may be harmed as well, and success at being an upstander is not guaranteed. Perpetrators tyrannize those who are unable to stand up for themselves; like how predators seek out the vulnerable preys. Hence, instead of having bystanders to stand up for the victim, the victim should stand up for him/herself. In addition, unlike what Lehrman believes, bystanders are not the most dangerous to the victim; the perpetrator is. Saying that bystanders are the most dangerous is is like saying that if one witnesses something, then he/she is a criminal. Consequently, saying that bystanders should stand up for victims against perpetrators is illogical and naive. Concisely, it is not another’s responsibility to ensure one’s safety and wellness; instead, it is one’s responsibility to do so.
Ross, William D.. "What Makes Right Acts Right?" The Right and the Good. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930. 753-760. Obtained from PHIL 250 B1, Winter Term 2014 Readings – Ethics. University of Alberta eClass.
make a person think that not all laws are good for the group in society and
The question has been presented: "Would it be right for a government to impound and sell one of Donald Trump's many Learjets in order to pay for a life saving cancer treatment?" A restatement of this question may be : Would it be right for the government to seize the property of any man in order to benefit the society at large? The answer to this question is not a simple one. The inquiry immediately brings to light several layered questions concerning the matter. One might look first into the natural rights of man. What rights does man have according to nature? Secondly, one must consider the rights of a man as part of a society or one who has entered into a social contract. The third aspect up for observation is the code of the particular society of which that man is a part, in this case the United States of America. Each of these views compounded might yield an accurate picture on whether or not an action of the sort, seizure of private property for the public good, would be right, morals not taken into account. However, with morals taken into consideration, the complexity of attaining an answer may compound with every moral theory.
...for that individual is the nation as a whole if all individual rights are observed then the rights of your public have taken care of themselves. “We can have as much or as little crime as we please; depending on what we choose to count as criminal.” Herbet L.Packer.
Millions of people all over the United States choose motorcycles over automobiles for the thrill, speed, and high performance capabilities. On the other hand, motorcycles are not at all the safest way of transportation. Motorcycles do not provide the passenger with the outer protection that cars provide, therefore, when one crashes, the results are usually much more serious. Injuries to the head are responsible for 76% of fatalities when dealing with motorcycle crashes many of which could have been prevented had the rider been wearing a helmet. For this reason, many states have adopted the motorcycle helmet law. The law states that every passengers must wear a helmet at all times when riding on a motorcycle. This law has created a great deal of controversy. One side supports the law, believing that it protects motorcyclists from danger and saves the economy a great deal of money. The other side argues that the law is unconstitutional and it violates our right to freedom. However, statistics show overwhelming support in favor of the motorcycle helmet law. Although wearing helmets cannot prevent motorcycle crashes, they can greatly reduce the number of deaths caused by head injury as well as lowering taxes, insurance rates, and health care costs. Therefore, the helmet law should be put into effect in every state across the United States.
ABSTRACT: Recently, unrestrained consequentialism has been defended against the charge that it leads to unacceptable trade-offs by showing a trade-off accepted by many of us is not justified by any of the usual nonconsequenlist arguments. The particular trade-off involves raising the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System. As a society, we seemingly accept a trade-off of lives for convenience. This defense of consequentialism may be a tu quoque, but it does challenge nonconsequentialists to adequately justify a multitude of social decisions. Work by the deontologist Frances Kamm, conjoined with a perspective deployed by several economists on the relation between social costs and lives lost, is relevant. It provides a starting point by justifying decisions which involve trading lives only for other lives. But the perspective also recognizes that using resources in excess of some figure (perhaps as low as $7.5 million) to save a life causes us to forego other live-saving activities, thus causing a net loss of life. Setting a speed limit as low as 35 miles per hour might indeed save some lives, but the loss of productivity due to the increased time spent in travel would cost an even greater number of lives. Therefore, many trade-offs do not simply involve trading lives for some lesser value (e.g., convenience), but are justified as allowing some to die in order to save a greater number.
Some of these arguments are stronger than others for example the abortion argument while unfortunate that a person’s private sad event could lead to a public good there is weight to this argument.
Nation the right to boast of fairness and justice being served without conflicting with personal
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
Van Lange, P., Joireman, J., Hardisty, D., & Van Djik, E. (2014). Introduction to social dilemmas. Steering Committee of the International Conferences on Social Dilemmas. Retrieved from http://socialdilemma.com/content/introduction-social-dilemmas
However, that opposing argument can be found as hypocritical. If a person was getting robbed in an ally and they saw many witnesses taking no action they would likely be upset by the fact of no one is offering any assistance to them. Bystanders should put themselves into the shoes of the person in need and ask themselves how they would expect others to respond if they were the one in need. Often time’s bystanders take no intervention because of the diffusion of responsibility. “When there are four or more people who are bystanders to an emergency situation, the likelihood that at least one of them will help is just 31%” (Gaille). Another statistic shows that 85% of people who were bystanders would intervene if they knew or at least though they were the only person present in the situation. Often the only thing keeping people from intervening in bystander situations are other people. It is important for bystanders to understand the statistics of the people around them in order to create action because often times they do not realize that if they were to intervene other people would likely support them in the situation. Bystanders need to make it a personal responsibility to intervene in situations for the good of other. If people were to always take action the amount of bullying, sexual harassment, crime, and many other significant issues within a society would drastically
Glaucon’s first argument confronts one of the reasons people do act justly, however it is not for the greatest of motives. Glaucon lays out the positions you can be in society and weighs the advantages to the disadvantages, and
Riding a motorcycle can be a fun and exciting hobby. With gas prices at near all-time highs, it can also be a very economical way of getting around. Unfortunately, it can also be dangerous. In the spring of 2006, my brother received third-degree burns on both legs when the motorcycle he was riding was hit from behind by a straight truck. He was not wearing a helmet at the time of the crash and to this day I have no idea how he lived. He was lucky to have survived, but many others are not. To protect motorcyclists, laws should mandate all riders wear a helmet because statistics indicate that they prevent serious injury which, in turn, causes economic strain to society.