Devry ETHC445 Week 5 Discussion Latest 2021 June

ETHC445 Principles of Ethics

Week 5 Discussion

Utilitarianism and Care-Based Ethics

Three basic propositions in utilitarianism (aka ends-based/ Consequentialism):

Actions are judged right and wrong based solely on their consequences; that is, nothing matters but consequences, so right actions are simply those with the best consequences.

To assess consequences, we need to consider only degrees of happiness.

In calculating happiness and unhappiness, nobody's happiness counts any more than anybody else's; that is, everybody's welfare is equally important, and the majority rules.

In specific cases wherein justice and utility are in conflict, it may seem expedient to serve the greater happiness through quick action that overrules consideration of justice. In short, utilitarianism's critics say that it may favor short-term gains for expediency over long-term, truly lasting and effective, "good."

Care-based ethics is, in a sense, the opposite of utilitarian ethics. Care-based ethics focuses on interpersonal motives and mutually supportive relationships more than it does on outcomes. Compromise is key, and consensus that all can agree on.

Here is a choice. It illuminates the value of and the issues surrounding utilitarianism.

It's very relevant that the "founder" of economics, Jeremy Bentham, ca. 1800 proposed how to "calculate" greater "happiness" (long-term positive gain for all affected by a moral implementation, not only those approving it, so no selfishness) by a "cost-benefit" theory. John Stuart Mill elaborated it about 50 years later. He eliminated "God" from moral mathematics. He sought to add up pros/cons that could be weighed as possible solutions so as to estimate the ethical outcomes of a particular action before it happens~"the end justifies the means" and "greatest good for greatest number" are rough simplifications.

You're a "junior senator" (Links to an external site.) in your home state. The House has passed a bill that will make public college education free for any American who wants one. It is now up to the Senate to sign it into law. You're also an entrepreneur, and like most American grads, you paid for your own education with loans. It took you almost 20 years to pay yours back. Your home state is split 50/50 for and against this bill. Arguments for benefits of a debt-free education include strengthening of consumer power (less debt) and a more educated workforce and populace. Current student loan debt=$1.5-1.8 trillion. Arguments against include that almost all college students have paid for their own educations (or earned them via the G.I. Bill) and that individuals and businesses will pay more taxes. Current Federal debt=$28 trillion, growing at $45,586 per second (Links to an external site.)  download. As a senator, cite research (see 13 websites in my first post) to crunch data (e.g., the potential number of students who will benefit, potential dollars in tax burden for individuals and businesses, and the potential number of ex-students who've paid off or are paying off their student loan debt; may debt forgiveness--up to $10k perhaps--be an option?) Do not rely on emotion or opinion, only logic and fact--if you follow utilitarianism. If care-based, "feelings" apply.

Majority rules: so you must be careful, as a utilitarian, not to abuse that power: You are looking out for the most happiness -- as beneficial, sustained, measurable, long-term, practical gain in true "good"-- for the most people, regardless of any personal, partisan, or procedural beliefs.

How would you as a utilitarian senator vote on this dilemma? Why?

How would another senator using care-based ethics vote on it? Why?

In the broader view, what do your own reactions to this dilemma as a senator/ entrepreneur and as the actual "you" show you about the human mind and how it processes "by the numbers," and by care/empathy