Utilitarian Perspective on Ethics Essay

Utilitarian perspective on ethics

Utilitarian ethics proposes that actions are considered right or wrong according to the greatest amount of people that they help and/or make happy. The two foremost pioneers of the theory were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill although Utilitarianism, in some form, always existed started off with hedonism and Aristotle (each of whom advocated different forms of eudemonia / contentment / happiness).

Branches of classical utilitarianism are 'Ideal utilitarianism'; act and rule utilitarianism (where rules are involved); two-level utilitarianism (that differentiates between act and rule); and preference utilitarianism (where the actual act of choosing depends on the preferences of the individual). Still other strands include Negative Utilitarianism (that focuses on what not to do); and motive utilitarianism (where acts are chosen according to those which give the greatest deal of felicity).

A recent case in the news perfectly showcases the principle of utilitarian ethics in practice. At the same time, it shows us the difference between deontological ethics and utilitarian approach. (Deontological ethics place the focus on obligatory principles of right and wrong; practicing certain principles because you are morally obligated to do so. Kantian imperative and the Biblical commands are examples of this.)

Jason Ellsworth, a U.S. commander, was killed whilst serving in Iraq in 2005. His father wished to make a memorial for him and, therefore, asked Yahoo for access to his e-mail correspondence whilst in Iraq. Yahoo refused citing their contract of privacy with users. The case was brought to court, and Ellsworth won. Controversy ensued that made front lines in many papers. On the one hand, readers argued that Yahoo was right: it had promised confidentiality to its users and could not break that promise, come what may. On the other hand, there were others who argued that the family may profit from release of correspondence and that, therefore, it should be transmitted.(HU, 2004)

The furor reflects the representation of the utilitarian argument as well as the conflict between deontological and utilitarian perspectives. Individuals who stood up for Yahoo indicated partisanship to the deontological in that they insisted that Yahoo had to -- was morally obligated -- to keep its word. Those who condemned Yahoo and supported Ellsworth practiced the Utilitarian approach in that they asserted that more people would be made happy by release of the e-mail than were the e-mail to be kept from them. They pointed to other internet providers such as Hotmail, Gmail and AOL that transfer the e-mail correspondence to the family of the deceased upon death of the deceased. They also maintained that:

E-mail has become a source of information about soldiers on the front lines. Images of the war and correspondences to loved ones have helped paint a picture of life in Iraq and Afghanistan, while helping families stay in touch with loved ones serving abroad. (Hu, 2005)

And that: "Soldiers killed in action may also have important information in their e-mail accounts to help families settle personal matters, such as closing out accounts or other housekeeping matters." (ibid)

These make the crunch of the Utilitarian argument.

Legal cases on the subject, such as Darrow and Ferrara (2005), have argued on both sides, and have also referred to situations of clear utilitarian import where release of the private correspondence may serve the benefits of an exponential amount of people. Take the case, for instance, of a hypothetical Freud who….....