Eliane Zavala Telecourse Paper 3 Prof. D. Thiel April 18, 2009.

Does the end justify the means?

Every day we are posed with moral dilemmas forcing us to act even when we would rather not take a stand. Living in a day and time in which self-interests seem to be the norm, the question, does the end justify the means might be easily answered by many. I shall take the opposing view and argue that the utilitarian principle of ethics fails to help individuals and institutions in achieving moral decisions. Although at first one might be inclined to agree with the basic premise of the utilitarian theory, after a more critical analysis, it is easy to notice its shortcomings. Generally speaking, utilitarianism holds that the moral course of action should be the one that will produce the greatest net of benefits to the majority of subjects involved, and at the same time, cause the least negative impact on the minority involved. Indeed, it is a very commonsensical view used by all of us even without our own awareness. Governments, legislators, judges, business people, and individuals are constantly weighing the pros and cons of complicated matters to achieve a solution. I have to agree that the utilitarian approach offers a forthright guideline to answering some moral questions while other theories like Kantianism and the virtue ethics of Aristotles, are more difficult to apply. Nevertheless, many complications to the utilitarian approach can surface with complex issues, even when a more sophisticated version of it is used, such as rule utilitarianism. Briefly, rule utilitarianism also focuses on choices that maximize benefits and minimize harm, but it is different in its approach: it seeks a general rule that generates the best consequences. Regardless of which utilitarian approach is used, three main problems to moral ethical decisions surface: how to foresee consequences, how to measure benefits over harm, and finally, how minorities are disregarded in the process.

First lets discuss the problem of consequences. How can one comprehensively foresee the consequences of an action taken based only on the benefits it brings now? Some every day consequences are easy to predict, for example, instead of having a medical check-up, I decide to take a chance on my health, and the outcome and impact of my decision is somewhat easy to be anticipated. On the other hand, decisions that have a complex impact on a large number of people, such as the decision President George Bush made when he approved the invasion of Iraq, have consequences extremely difficult to be forecasted. According to Bushs understanding of the situation at the time, the war would be quick, democracy would flourish in Iraq, and Americans would have done their moral duty to rid the world of an evil man. Bushs decision had repercussions that were not predicted by him or his close advisors; a small minority at the time considered some possible consequences that were disregarded. It seems like Bush had chosen a very utilitarian approach since he took the moral course of action that appeared to produce the greatest balance of benefits over harm to achieve a desired end. Unfortunately, we are all painfully aware of the many negative ramifications of the War in Iraq as history unfolds. Having discussed how utilitarianism fails to predict problematical consequences in many instances, I shall get to my next argument regarding proper standards to measure benefits (pleasure) over harms (pain). A utilitarian approach has to assign a value to pain and gains in order to gage the proper balance between the two. Assigning value in moral predicaments can be a very subjective business, for example, what is pain or gain for one person might not be pain or gain for another. Recently, I watched a program reporting on the dilemma over building the Hasankeyf dam over a historical site in the Tigris River. The locals needed the water for a better quality of life, and business would profit from an improved infrastructure. How could one assign the adequate value to the historical artifacts found in the area? Moreover, how about the loss of animal and plant life? Many consider the moral impasse difficult to be solved, while others are less hesitant about which position to take.

Lastly I would like to talk about how the utilitarian ethical theory overlooks the extension of justice to minorities. If the rights, the gains, and the interests of a majority always weigh heavier on the scale of justice, how could it ever be a moral and ethical choice? How about checks and balances? Who would be making the decisions? It is clear some sacrifice has to be made in many instances, but can we trust a system that looks for rules that would serve the majority only? What if the majority is wrong about a particular situation? Lets remember how one man, Hitler, decided the future of his nation by influencing the majority to follow his ideas. Can we again make the same mistakes as we had in the past by totally disregarding minorities rights? Native Americans, and African Americans were at one point simply means to an end in our history. The basic principle of no action being wrong as long as a majority benefits from it is a scary one. Even when consequentialism or rule utilitarianism are used to refine the basic premise of utilitarianism, the question of who is the beneficiary and who would be the judge in a particular situation raises concern. Perhaps just like many other questions posed by Philosophy, the question of morality and ethical decisions is a very difficult one because it entangles human related issues as well as all the complexities it encompasses. Nevertheless, one cannot simply make a decision benefiting the majority regardless of the means used and without taking in consideration the dignity of the individual self that is part of the minority being impacted. I would agree with Kants postulation of people as the end and never as the means, even though that sometimes poses incredibly difficult moral questions to be answered. Moreover, as human beings, we have the tendency to make decisions bias to an anthropocentric point of view favoring our own immediate needs and disregarding our ecosystem. In order to make a truly ethical decision, we must take a stand to protect life in general, even if such decision may cause us some pain at the present moment and the benefactors of such rule are not yet even alive.