In Tony Nicklinson's case, what would a utilitarianist do following the rule of 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people? (Whether to keep him alive or change the law so he can be killed.)
Thank you!

What do you think the answer is? AMHD does not permit us to do your homework for you.

I think maybe not let him die because otherwise there may be a cascading effect of deaths...
Please not this is extra research not a homework task

Although not letting physically handicapped people die is not really going to benefit anyone...

In Tony Nicklinson's case, what would a utilitarianist do following the rule of 'the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people? (Whether to keep him alive or change the law so he can be killed.)
Thank you!


Hi Moon Jam,

I don't know who Tony Nicklinson is, but I think I understand your question.

How you have framed the question sounds like you want to do an evaluation in light of classical utilitarianism. This version of the theory is largely the work of Mill and Bentham.

If this is the case then there would be a couple of points to keep in mind.

Firstly, classical utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. Therefore, only the consequences of an action are important. Not what might happen or the motive from which the action is done.

Secondly, it is also a hedonistic theory. An action is right if it produces happiness for the greatest number. Happiness in this case being pleasure.

An interesting point would also be that classical utilitarianism doesn't talk about actions being good or bad; just right or wrong.

Utilitarianism has undergone many changes and modifications of the years and thus we have ended up with a large variety of utilitarian theories. They are all somewhat different. For example, many modern versions of the theory don't necessarily require a hedonistic principle.



.

There is MUCH more to this case then your overly simplest comments

Whether to keep him alive or change the law so he can be killed.

Do you actually understand what Mr Nicklinson was fighting for ?

But if you are looking at the greatest happiness to the greatess number of people, then what the individual person wants in his case, has no meaning, since he is only one person.

You would have to know the mass numbers of people who are on each side and then which side has the greatest number.

In this term of view, right or wrong, moral or not moral is not part of the issue as to a choice, it is happiness of largest number of people

But if you are looking at the greatest happiness to the greatess number of people, then what the individual person wants in his case, has no meaning, since he is only one person.

You would have to know the mass numbers of people who are on each side and then which side has the greatest number.

In this term of view, right or wrong, moral or not moral is not part of the issue as to a choice, it is happiness of largest number of people



You are close to the mark with your comments. There are many difficulties with the theory in determining how much happiness an individuals actions creates.

As you have pointed out,Bentham had some idea that you could somehow add up the numbers of people that approved of an action and compare that with the number of people that such an action cause unhappiness. The problem with this is that some people are inherently more important than most of the others combined. For example my actions potential to create unhappiness or happiness is nothing compared to some world leader. Nietzsche points out:

" I abhor the man's vulgarity when he says. 'What is right for one man is right for another'. 'Do not to others that which you would not that they should do unto you.' Such principles would frain establish the whole of human traffic upon mutual service, so that every action would appear to be a cash payment for something done to us. The happiness here is ignoble to the last degree; it is taken for granted that there is some sort of equivalence in value between my actions and thine"
Russell