Student’s Name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Utilitarianism Topics
Utilitarianism theory supports actions that bring happiness and contends to activities that may lead to harm or unhappiness. Utilitarianism supports the right moves, which brings joy to a more significant crowd. Utilitarianism rejects the moral codes that constitute orders, customs, and traditions engineered by supernatural beings or leaders (Yarkova). Utilitarians believe that morality is justifiable a positive impact on human beings. Utilitarianism shows some type of consequences of actions, policies, and laws that determine an effort is good or bad. Whatever the decision is, it must aim for an option that will maximize the utility. For utilitarianism to be understood, three things must be considered: what actions are considered good, whose actions are being maximized, and whether the policies are right based on their actual consequences.
1.A
The author suggests that people who intentionally act like idiots to get reactions and others with the intent of hurting other people are okay while the other is wrong. There may be some instances when trolling cannot be permitted but beneficial; this means that trolling can be ethical at some point. The author states that these two types of trolling are bullies, and frustrating rhetoric is not like the other (Philips). His style is not putting ahead some inflammatory rhetoric. If we were to act like the author, that is, in real life, then most people would take you as stupid while some would understand the joke, but there would be no one who would a that you were dangerous or wrong in any way, this the trolling that brings social good.
The author suggests that the context of “don’t feed the trolls” puts the responsibility on the person being trolled and not the platform where the trolling is happening (Idea Channel). It is impossible to ignore people who make threats that they are going to kill. He criticizes this context by saying that it does not provide a way to question the existence of extreme behaviors or how it can be discouraged. The author agrees that people are entitled to pose arguments, but there is a boundary between even the cruelest threats and criticism of physical violence against someone.
I think that a utilitarian could wear a blue shirt because the thought experiment that enables the listener to participate in their philosophical problems and intuition in deontology suggests that there will always troll for globalization when in turned to a saying, as it can be observed what takes places whenever people live in the comfort of fully deploying their opinions in writing. It is evident that trolls find enjoyment in harassing others, and they are always aware of how their attitude and behaviors affect others. Since utilitarianism involves wellbeing and most people’s happiness, it can be justified that the majority gains pleasure even if the minority doesn’t.
2.A
To argue that having children is wrong, the author cites a philosopher named Benatar, whose position rests on what he calls “the asymmetry between pain and pleasure.” How does he use this distinction to argue that having children is wrong?
Philosopher David Benatar argues that being created is wrong because of the “Asymmetry between Pain and Pleasure.” It is a good thing if the pain would be absent where nobody faces sufferings, but the absence of pleasure is wrong if the person existing misses on it. Missing joy is bad if it goes ahead to result in actual pain (Tube). Benatar argues that if some will suffer and feel responsible for creating people to experience pleasure, then avoiding suffering is what matters. Benatar describes his argument in utilitarian terms. His views weigh the negatives and positives of creating and the consequences of having a child against another. The positives outweigh the negatives when they produce maximum harm, and the harm of existence is greater than the pleasure experienced.
Christine, Overall believes that Benatar’s theory is defective and designs three criticisms that demonstrate the reasons and the forth indicating that if Benatar’s thesis is correct, it would contain dangerous consequences. In her first criticism, Overall agrees with the assumptions that value can be credited to pain and pleasure absence even when there lacks entity that will feel that absence. Overall makes a proposition of a thought-experiment. She concludes that the absence of pleasure is wrong at times. The second criticism queries the context that suggests that the lack of things is valuable when no one can experience it. She indicates that Benatar abuses the moral language since avoidance of something bad is not beneficial to non-existence because the advantage cannot by then be experienced. She contends with Benatar’s idea that it is preferable to non-existence over existing because non-existing preferences cannot be felt. The third criticism bases its argument on Benatar’s treatment of existence and non-existence like ordinary features of a person. Overall suggests that these features can be disadvantageous, neutral, or advantageous. Overall, it is not sensible to see that existence is an advantage or a disadvantage because existence is necessary to experience pleasure or pain. The last criticism does not show that Benatar’s asymmetry is flawed but indicates this theory’s negative implication. If the asymmetry were right, then the responsibility not to create would be protection for wellbeing and not appeal to the symmetry.
when considering just the utility of children or their parents, utilitarians aim to maximize the utility of the whole system and think about the consequences for everyone and the future when deciding whether to have children. From a utilitarian perspective, it would be wrong to sire children if it meant that they are brought to a life of sadness and pain, which may argue that minimizing suffering has more importance than maximization of happiness.
3.A
Superman’s identity as Clark Kent works at the Daily Planet; the author argues that he should be out saving people by being Superman and all the time he spends being an average human he could use it to save people. The author states that Superman is different from other heroes and could drop the Clark Kent persona, live out of the fortress of solitude and be superman 24/7. From a utilitarian perspective., the argument is that there could be deaths that occur would be prevented because Superman is spending time as Clark Kent. The idea that we are capable of doing more good without sacrificing something of comparable moral significance, then we should prevent it. Superman, like Superman, could avoid a lot of bad things from happening without sacrificing much. So he should keep being Superman until he reaches the point of marginal utility.
B.
Positive duties of assistance apply by helping someone in trouble, or one can save them and all other things being equal one should feel obligated to do so. On the other hand, negative duties imply that one does not have to help people in trouble as long as you don’t harm them; it is then morally acceptable to ignore people who need help. Moral libertarians believe in negative duties. Superman is a moral libertarian because he believes that he does not owe anybody anything and can save people as he pleases; besides, he can opt to spend time as Clark Kent and let people die, which is also acceptable. The author’s case for Superman as a moral libertarian is valid because Superman exercises what he wants, and his actions do not hurt others.
Positive duties advocate for helping others. Superman frequently takes down corrupt business people and politicians and helping the underprivileged. Superman should continue hiding his secret persona as Clark Kent and as Superman to save people and making the world better 24/7; the identity as Clark Kent grants him a human perspective that keeps him in check and prevents him from losing the sense of humanity.
Works Cited
Idea Channel. The Experience of Being Trolled | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios. YouTube, 22 Jan. 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHSSNyIlAps.
Overall, Christine. “Why have children.” The Ethical Debate. Cambridge (2012).
Philips, Whitney. “Why Study Villains, Scoundrels, and Rule Breakers? Whitney Phillips at Tedxccs.” (2013).
Philosophy Tube. Is Having Children Wrong? | Philosophy Tube. YouTube, 30 Sept. 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDuNKEzRa8.
Philosophy Tube. Who Should Superman Save? | Philosophy Tube Ft. NerdSync. YouTube, 21 Oct. 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujZlpciY_cI.
Yarkova, Elena N. “Utilitarianism as a Philosophy Of Education.” The Education and science journal 5 (2016): 11-24.