Utilitarianism (Greatest Happiness Principle)

I think I follow the Greatest Happiness Principle quite a bit. I weigh my options and choose what will make myself or others (and hopefully it can be both) happiest. I disagree with Utilitarianism in one of the examples Dr. Richards was using about dogfighting, because I do not think harming dogs is justifiable just to make some humans happy.

Scenario: City of Happiness
Although I think it's morally wrong because of my view of equality and human rights, I think it is justifiable to keep things the way they are, because it is benefitting many people, a whole city, which is more important than one person being unhappy. Molly brought up the point during our discussion at our table, that there are many children in the world living in as terrible conditions of as child in the City of Happiness, and so if the entire world was in this situation, it would be beneficial to everyone that so many people are happy and healthy and are not living in the conditions the one child is.

Scenario: Hampsterdam
I do not think moving crime out of the public view helps in anyway. I does not fix the problem of drug crime and it could even lead to more crime. It sends the message that police officers think drugs are okay as long as it is traded and taken privately, which I do not agree with. I especially think it is wrong when relating it to Jeremy Bentham's idea of rounding up the beggars. I think that is an even worse idea than the Hampsterdam scenario, because the homeless cannot help begging. It gives off the impression that police do not think giving to those in need is a good idea, instead it is just annoying to them.

Scenario: The Price of a Human Being
This whole concept makes me feel very upset. It makes me feel like people do not value other peoples' lives, their own wellbeing, or the lives of animals. I am kind of disturbed that a company would be willing to let 180 people die and 180 people get injured and not do anything about it. It is not just a company; there are people behind the company. And these are not just numbers; there are people that were actually killed because of faulty engines or smoking cigarettes. I feel like people are just so immensely selfish. What do the companies need with all that money when human lives are at stake? And how could a person be willing to strangle a cat for money? That is disturbing and upsetting.

Has your view of the Greatest Happiness Principle changed during this class?
Yes, it definitely has. At the beginning of class when Dr. Richards introduced the idea of Greatest Happiness Principle, I recognized that some people might suffer, but that does not matter if more people are benefitting. I viewed it as just like the scenarios we went through last class: one death is better than five deaths. However, I now realize that human life and such things are not just mathematical equations. There are real lives behind it that are more important than a company or the government making money. I think anyone who is a moral person will not agree with utilitarianism because of their values, such as the value of human life.