1

Case 2.2

Umran Alsabahi

Macomb Community College

How would utilitarian respond to this case?

“Virtue is going well. The ‘doing' part is vital because individuals are assessed on

their acts, our outcomes, and the implications of our activities. Admittedly, ethical criteria seem

to be about building a better world, thus our acts could have the best outcomes. Researchers can

agree that enjoyment is desirable and suffering is negative, therefore certainly our obligation

must include bringing as much joy as practical and averting even more misery as feasible? In

such ideas, I am inspired by renowned utilitarian theorists like theorist John stuart Mill. Almost

all believe that human moral commitments boil down to one thing: maximize pleasure for the

largest number. No, I am not implying that my contentment is significantly more than yours. If

we could quantify happiness, I would gladly agree that one piece of your pleasure equals one

unit of mine; I am extremely interested about everyone's contentment. While you may argue that

the earth is a tricky place and that I am overly unreliable, it is true that there are occasions when

maximizing satisfaction is not an option. So, since the only alternative is disutility, gets to pick

the least annoying consequence. My hypothesis has the benefit of providing constructive tips

about what to do in various scenarios. To achieve the maximum satisfaction, he must assess the

benefits and drawbacks of every one of his decisions. Nevertheless, if George somehow doesn't

complete the task, his partner will do it faster and better, resulting in a similar if not less

consequence. So it doesn't matter if George performs it or not in fact, George is preferable as he

might do the job less efficiently. Would almost George be happier, so will his spouse and kids if

he accepts the position. I think George should get the job.”

How does personal integrity play a role in the decisions of each of these men?

My thoughts turned to something I would have performed if I were George or Jim after

learning their stories. A good starting point is the dilemma facing George's household, who must
 3

decide whether to approve or disapprove a job offer letter at an academic research facility

studying bio-and toxic weaponry in order to provide for their needs. With strict ethics, he decides

to turn down the opportunity, even if it could offer new income avenues for his family (Sinclair,

2017). Because Georges does not want to be associated with everything which has to do with

war or the loss of life is something I truly appreciate. Nevertheless, I believe that accepting the

permanent job would be the best course of action. He would be able to aid himself and his

household by carrying out tests as a scientist.

What other consideration must be dealt with in pondering these cases?

Nevertheless, I believe that Jim is in a comparable position as George. He needs to decide

if he wants to live or die with the remainder of them. This is a hard call to make, given that he

values both his own life and the lives of others he scarcely knows. This puts Jim in a perilous

scenario where he can either be killed by the terrorists or save his own life by killing someone

else (Sinclair, 2017). Killing an native Indian would be the greatest option for him to survive,

given that he is only a traveler As far as I'm concerned, Jim and will do what it takes to keep

himself safe. Even though that may contradict moral views, murdering one individual while

sparing other Indian lives appears to be the greatest choice for Jim.
 4

Reference

Sinclair, C. (2017). Ethics in psychology: Recalling the past, acknowledging the present, and

looking to the future. Canadian Psychology/psychologie canadienne, 58(1), 20.