DEFENSE OF UTILITARIANISM

Jeremy Bentham (1789) methodological philosophy is a hedonistic concept which states that
sometimes it depended around its consequence for such an activity to be correct or incorrect; this
year's act which generates more satisfaction and less discomfort is a correct act.
Kantian philosophy of rational action is an utilitarianism theory (research of the essence of duty
and responsibility) which states that this is not the effects of both the behavior that determine
whether another behavior is correct or incorrect, it is also the act themselves that must be morally
acceptable. He describes the morality theory as the labor theory of value.
That research project was carried out between 1946 and 1948 with both the authorization of the
National Institutes of Health's (NIH) PHS department, Syphilis Test Group, Global Health
Advisory committee, federally sponsored and authorized by both the U.S. Surgeon General.
This research attempted to research and come up with a cure for the STD (sexually transmitted
disease). We chose Guatemala as experimental research location even though the commercial
sex trade in Guatemala was permissible in prison, thereby taking advantage of the system they
felt we were performing the offender’s studies. They picked 5,500 prisoners, orphans, school
kids, troops, people with mental health problems and commercial sex employees and chose to
study such objects as a prolonged exposure.
Of both the 1300 subjects subjected towards this study, it has never been mentioned that they
were being tested for STD. No care was ever offered to those matters. The documentation states
that, during most of the tests, 83 of that same participants died despite knowing they were also
being tested. The existence of the rest of the topics is uncertain.
The above form of experimentation is philosophically incorrect, since the investigator has to tell
the respondents.
1. Whatever the work is already being carried out for.
2. How are the impacts of the study?
3. Fore beginning the experimental we should also get consent from those in the participant.
4. Anywhere and at point of experimental the respondents have had the right to quit the
procedure.
Knowledge was disclosed in 2010, that 1,300 of these study participants became subjected
deliberately and contaminated with STDs against their permission. At least 83 of those questions
have died. A detailed analysis of this episode was undertaken by the International Commission
for both the Study of Political and ethical Problems including one with a compilation of 125,000
items of original documents, an essence saying-finding trip to Guatemala and discussions with
the government's own investigating commission.
September 2011, the Committee published its very own study called Philosophically
Questionable STD Work in Guatemala from 1946 to 1948, which this one reported at
http:/www.bioethics.gov on the Committee's homepage. The commissioner learned that
considerable latitude was granted to the U.S. investigators in Guatemala in performing the
experiment and hardly any PHS supervision. They even goes to great lengths to keep under
wraps of their operations. Although some of the investigators had subsequently obtained
permission to experimentation with human subjects while they operated in the United States,
they wisely missed this practice in Guatemala, in a "multiple standards" considered "shocking"
by the committee.
That idea for conducting experiments in Guatemala originated from a Guatemalan specialist who
has been in the U.s for a study abroad program with the state, according to historical documents.
The U.s had already a robust emergency assistance system in place for Guatemala, as well as a
commission at the National Institutes of Health thoroughly reviewed support for both the study.
Partnerships for broad-ranging STD work were concluded with many government officials in
Guatemala. The U.S. investigators received comprehensive support in supplying scarce drugs as
well as other incentives to guarantee the Guatemalan officials continuous collaboration.
Bentham established his philosophical philosophy of Utilitarianism on both the basis of the
debauched mentality form mentioned in segment two. To Bentham, the first and only element
deciding the worth of a life, and perhaps even the worth of an event and action, is the volume of
enjoyment found within this life, or even the quantity of enjoyment created as both a
consequence of such an activity or intervention. Bentham is a Practical misanthrope.
Furthermore, this conviction in hedonism wasn't something Bentham considered to be
disproportionate or arbitrary; with him, hedonism could also be experimentally explained in his
favor, by proof throughout the universe. Bentham states:
“Science brought the human race under the leadership of two supreme rulers, pain and
enjoyment. It is for themselves alone to figure out what we need to do, and to decide what it is
we are going to do.”
Before you even consider Utilitarianism, it is also important to consider what the word "utility"
means. Bentham described it as that attribute in any subject by which it seeks to yield profit,
benefit, enjoyment, goodness, or happiness or to prevent damage, suffering, misery, or
dissatisfaction from happening. Therefore, when enjoyment is encouraged and dissatisfaction is
prevented, usage is encouraged. With him, Bentham's dedication to hedonism indicates that
happiness is merely an improvement in enjoyment, and bad or dissatisfaction is merely an
improvement in discomfort or a decline in enjoyment. With the concept of usefulness in
consideration, Bentham is committed to the utility theory:
“By either the philosophy of usefulness is intended that principle which supports or wants to be a
part of any behavior imaginable, according to propensity that seems to have to increase or
diminish that happiness of the group whom purpose is in query: or, in other words, what would
be the same matter, to encourage or oppose this satisfaction.”
Moreover, the moral relativism of Bentham is more relativistic than Authoritarian. Dogmatic
personal beliefs hold that almost all acts, regardless of meaning or implications, will still be
morally incorrect. For instance, several advocacy groups argue that torture is often morally
immoral whether it has been committed by vindictive regimes attempting to instill fear in a
populace, and whether it is approved by legitimately elected government trying to collect
intelligence to deter a terrorist attack. To absolutists instead, the act of torture in all
circumstances and conditions is completely false.
Bentham's utilitarianism is optimizing as it not only involves the pursuit of enjoyment, but
secures the greater satisfaction for the greater amount. This suggests that certain actions that lead
to enjoyment still wouldn't be morally correct acts if refused several other action that would have
created more and more enjoyment in that environment. So, for instance, if you derive some
gratification from investing money on an expensive book, but also that expenditure could have
generated further enjoyment if it had been contributed to a young homeless organization, then
purchasing a book would have been morally wrong, even when it contributed to some
gratification even though it did not increase the maximum amount of satisfaction which was
achievable in that book.
Kant's theory is an illustration of a political philosophy in deontology – with these ideas, the
fairness or incorrectness in acts depends not on the implications but on how they serve our
obligation. Kant argued that philosophy had a central value and he alluded to it as The
Teleological Essential.
Also, Kant will have something to say around what makes a successful person. Keep in mind that
Kant intends everything to go along with rest throughout his philosophy, and the categorical
imperative will decide what someone's responsibility is. Furthermore, one may sometimes view
something as a separate principle, and assume that certain other norm defines one's obligation.
Bear in mind that whatever is mentioned below is relevant to how people are judged, not
behavior. The acts of a person are correct or incorrect, a person becomes morally acceptable and
lacks moral value (i.e., is morally foundational). The acts of a individual decide their moral
meaning, and there is more than just knowing if the acts are correct or incorrect.
Imagine I win the jackpot and ask myself what to do with money. I'm looking about for whatever
is the funniest thing to do about it: buy a boat, travel around the world in first class, have the
knee procedure, etc. I want to donate the proceeds to charities and enjoy that great feeling you
have from making people smile, so I'll give away all the lottery money. I'm not a fundamentally
worthy guy, as per the Kant, because I did it, after all, I just chose something I figured would be
the most fun but there's nothing admirable about it as an egotistical endeavor. It was so fortunate
that I felt it was fun to give away the money for those charity.
Chairman of the board, Amy Guttmann, is Leader of Philadelphia University and a respected
political scientist and anthropologist. She said that in her statement following the final report
publication, "One culture cannot really be measured by how it handles it’s the most
disadvantaged citizens. It would be our moral obligation to provide for those that cannot defend
ourselves and we have obviously managed to hold the commitment in this seminal moment in
our mental health history.
Which truth had been withheld from either the participants of the procedure, involving the
government and responsible social service agencies? The respondents were orphans, children in
school, soldiers, people with mental health problems, and commercial sex employees indicates
we had chosen vulnerable respondents who have neither status in the community, as well as the
guardians of the families would have to give informed consent which was already missing. This
will be the simple case of immoral study, in which the vulnerable people have been taken
advantages of by the government and the public attorney general's office.
Somehow this procedure is immoral based on the most recent Utilitarian philosophy; the
utilitarian suggests the results determine whether all the behavior is unacceptable or right. What
where the implications of both the operation at a certain time was also not evident to the
individuals who had been exposed and poisoned by both the surgeons who died, their effects
were poor for the surviving participants who have never been identified or paid, they would also
have poisoned many healthy individuals. The consequence of the experimental or the
investigation's intent couldn't really automatically be determined. But perhaps the individuals
who had been contaminated would have had the infection transmitted with poor implications.
As that of the Kantian theory, that was an unethical act, their participants have never really been
conscious that they were being deliberately manipulated by the administering surgeons and are
often used as a study object. The departments have been behaving immorally and unethically.
Whether the study subjects were told of the intentions to manipulate themselves and their
permission was granted and therefore it is not acceptable to perform such experiments that play
around human beings. Would have been a correct and reasonable act if the individual will
already be compromised and his permission is required to perform the study to help him and
many others. Though they will take the respondents' permission even though he is conscious of
his condition, because he feels it will benefit him and many others alike.
References:
1. Beauchamp, Tom L & Childress, James F. (2001), Principles of Biomedical Ethics (5th.
Edition) Oxford, Oxford University Press.
2. Bentham, Jeremy, (1789) „Introduction to the Principals of Morals and Legislation‟, in
Warnock, Mary (ed.) (1962), Utilitarianism Fontana, London.
3. Lyons, David (1972) „Rawls versus Utilitarianism‟. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 69,
No. 18.
4. Mill, John Stuart: (1861), in Mary Warnock, (ed.) (1962) Utilitarianism. London,
Fontana.
5. Williams, Bernard, with JJC Smart (1973) .Utilitarianism: For and Against, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
6. Postman, Gerald J (1986). Bentham and the Common Law Tradition. Oxford, Oxford
University Press, p. 148.
7. Nussbaum, Martha C. (2004), „Mill between Aristotle & Bentham‟ Daedalus, vol. 133,
no. 2 pp. 60-68.
8. Hurst house, Rosalind (1998) On Virtue Ethics Available through Oxford Scholarship
Online at most major libraries or Oxford, Oxford University Press.