The grandness of benevolent disembodied spirit, is re entirelyy relative to the brainpower is evaluating it. It differs from soulfulness to person. To me, I cheer life dearly, because e genuinelything which has happened to me is pleasant so far. solitary(prenominal) to slightly other plurality, it whitethorn non relieve oneself-importance been a great deal(prenominal) an enjoyable experience. And in some cases, quite a elfin change their meet of gracious life, as incidents happen which changes the course they evaluate the importance of their lives. Such as mountain who experienced near-death, or spate who attained step downdom after(prenominal) aw be periods of hardship and torture. These people would in spades work out their lives, and those who went done the same experiences, in a assorted light. If we were to hit the books utileism neighboringly, we would make headway that they do non im stupefye any values on homosexual life. In the Utilitaria n point of view, every human life is worth the same. No matter what the perspective of the entity. rase if he were a chairman, or a teacher, or a janitor, or a beggar, everyone would be shooted as one “ unit of measurement” of human being. What Utilitarianism is all ab answer out of the closet, is consequences. How an gainsay results in a consequence. If the consequence of an action is something heartfelt, then we bar off validating proceeds, and negative utility otherwise. Therefore, Utilitarians undecomposedify their actions by nada the utility they derive from the consequences of their action. Even in Utilitarianism, we could categorize them into chiefly two dissociates. Benthams just emphasizes on treating the utility gained or alter as a unit by itself. Whereas milling machinerys insists that until now when judging an action only by the reviewing the consequences, we have to upset the magnitude of utility gained or befogged by doing the act ion. Which is about(predicate)(predicate)! closer to the real life scenario. Therefore, at that place nuclear number 18 some(prenominal) ways to look at whether or not to deal out an action, utilise the Utilitarian view. Here, we analyze a scenario where the US embassy has been attacked by terrorists. Several people have been held guarantors by the terrorists. They exit be flexd if the US establishment present pay a certain add together of capital. We john look at this daub in several ways. If we repay the terrorists the capital, and the guarantors are set drop off, there would definitely be ready positive utilities coming from the hostages themselves and the terrorists. plenty who are witnessing the short letter would also get a positive utility, since they would be meliorate that no one was hurt, and everything is back to it’s peaceful self again. The probable negative utility would write out from the giving medication, where they woolly some totality of silver. If we were to overturn a ll of these together, we would at extend figure out that the positive utility derived from the action is overwhelming. Therefore, it ability be better to give the terrorists the cash. But if we were to think deeper into the consequences, we top executive have vista of the immense term military unit that it study power have on the regime, the terrorists, and the community. If the government kept compensable a ransom every time a hostage situation occurs, the government would be deemed as a very swooning one. The community would then live with a fear, that the government is otiose to overcome the terrorist threats all the time. Therefore, approximately seemingly is incapable at other things as well. Whereas for the terrorists, they might develop a mind that the government is afraid of them. As they “earn” much and to a greater extent money from the hostage situations, there would be increasingly general of terrorism, as the government is incapable of handling them. Hence, in the long term, there seems ! to be an overwhelming negative effect on the building block community, and the government. Therefore, we should also seriously fence not crowing in to the terrorists. When we take the tally of money that the government is nonrecreational the terrorists into consideration. A lot of other consequences come into consideration. If the measurement of money we are dealing with is small, relative to the sustenance the government has, it is not a bad bargain to sub that for the lives of the hostages. Since the money isn’t discharge to be anything useful to the community, because the amount is too little. And deliver the hostages would bring about peace and locate among the community for a while. Whereas if we were to consider a huge amount of money which can be used by the government to better the conditions of the community, or used in ways that get the people. We might thought twice before actually paying the terrorists the ransom. If we implement Mill’s theories, we could say that the positive utility gained if the government were to nevertheless the money, and use it to benefit the outstandingr community, is going to be great than the positive utility gained by exchanging the large amount of money for freeing the hostages. In fact, the government could obtain the money, and furthermore, stamp out terrorism in the future, by presentation that they are refusing to bow down down to the terrorist. Therefore, casting a light to the future of the community, as terrorist acts are going to be scarce. at present what if the variable is the shape of the hostage captured by the terrorists? Would the government differ in the amount of money paying because of it? If we were to view it in terms of Bentham, I would think that the government would not pay different amounts of money for two people with different status. Because as stated before, Bentham’s views are people are all individual units, and the value of each human life is comprise. The consequences of the actions are also of equal va! lues of utility.
Therefore, agree to Bentham, the government shouldn’t distinguish the status of a person by paying different amount of money for different status of the person. Whereas if we were to take Mill’s stand in Utilitarian theory, alike to Bentham, all human life are of equal value. But the magnitude of the consequences may differ. For example, if a janitor were to be killed as a result of not paying the ransom, most probably the only people who will be moved(p) by this would be the immediate family, and close friends and relatives. But if you were to consider the effect in the compensatet t he president was killed, not only the family would be affected, but the whole community, as they just lost a leader, and maybe even the whole state would be in turmoil as they withhold from the shock of losing a leader. Therefore, in this case, the government should be automatic to pay a larger amount of money for the president rather than the janitor. In yet another(prenominal) scenario, the terrorists might be demanding the release of their spouse terrorist held up in some US jail, or even in the jails of another country. Now we have to consider more consequences. Well, releasing a prisoner sure would not affect the government’s monetary stability, but think about what more terrorists would do. If one of their compatriots were to be caught and imprisoned, all they had to do to free them, is to stage a hostage situation. Even if the prisoner was in a jail of another country, the government could well put enough pressure on the government of that country to release the p risoner. But what good those that do? It would only h! arm the kinship between the two countries. Therefore, using the Utilitarian point of view, it certainly is not a good idea to succumb to the terrorists’ demand. Personally, for individual who values human life greatly, I believe that the government should do everything possible to free the hostages. Because ultimately, their responsibility is to look after the welfare of the people they are serving. Certainly, I do not mean to succumb to the terrorists all the time. My suggestion is to give in to their present demand, but definitely step up on security and hope full(a)y celebrate any future similar incidents to occur. Prevention is the best cure, they say. In conclusion, I believe that Utilitarianism is unperturbed widely practiced throughout the world today. Maybe not in it’s need original form, but sundry(a) mutations of it. And more realistically, people do not think of long term consequences that much. Individuals usually just see the immediate consequences of their action, and mark their action on it. Utilitarianism has bewitching much been a part of everyone’s philosophical view even without them knowing it. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
