Philosophy: Two Differetn Types of Utilitarianism

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was one of the leading British moral philosophers of the nineteen-century (Feinberg, 596). As presented in class, Mill’s principle of utility is known as the greatest happiness principle which is defined as “actions are right as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to promote unhappiness” or in simple words “right actions maximize overall happiness” (Feinberg, 597). Mills definition of happiness is seen as “pleasure absent of pain” (Feinberg, 597). There are two different types of utilitarianism: act and rule. As talked about in lecture act utilitarianism is the “right action to perform on a particular occasion is the action which, on that occasion will result in the greatest sum of happiness. Rule utilitarianism is “the right action to perform on a particular occasion is the action which conforms with the rule such that, if the rule is generally followed, the greatest sum of happiness will result. Mill agrees with act utilitarianism and believes that it is the act, not conformity to a set of rules that determines an action’s moral status.

In the “Switch Case”, we are presented with a scenario in which there are two helpless men (Moe and Larry) tied to the railroad tracks and there is a runaway train speeding towards the two men. The train will surely kill the two men unless someone does something. The only possible thing to do is press a button that will cause the train to switch unto another track. Unfortunately, you see a third man (Curly) who is tied up on the other track. If you push the button, the third man will surly die. The act utilitarian approach to solving this dilemma would be to push the button and let Curly the third man die. This is true because those who believe in ...

... middle of paper ...

...n either case 1 or 3 and I would not throw Curly in front of the train in case 2 or 3. I do not believe that it is morally okay to sacrifice one life to save another. I would try to come up with an alternative solution in which I am not using a human being to save someone else. I know it may seem cruel but I would rather let the two be killed by the train before sacrificing another person. I believe that each life is important and no life is more important than another so I would never sacrifice someone’s life to save two other lives. While reading the cases I did not come across any important differences that would change my opinion about what I would do if I were put in that position.

Work Cited

Feinberg, Joel, and Russ Shafer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Boston, Ma: CENAGE Learning, 2013. Print.