What is Right? What is wrong?

If you order your cheap custom essays from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on What is Right? What is wrong?. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality What is Right? What is wrong? paper right on time.

Out staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in What is Right? What is wrong?, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your What is Right? What is wrong? paper at affordable prices with cheap essay writing service!

What is right and what is wrong? Who is the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong? For many individuals, the answers to those questions would be society. Morality is whatever a particular society deems it to be. In this increasingly global community, however, this ethical relativistic stance become problematic, especially with regards to scientific breakthroughs which impact mankind as a whole. There is a need for an ethical system that transcends societal boundaries; one such answer has been utilitarianism. Utilitarianism places happiness as the moral standard. Morality hinges on the consequences of one's actions and must result in some sort of good, i.e. a state where "at least one person is better off in that state" (Bailey 4). This causes us to develop a very subjective take on morality, where we are required to make a value judgment as to the outcomes of states, and compare them. If one state brings about the greater good for the greatest number of people, than it is a morally correct state. Utilitarianism is therefore, very useful in providing a formula with which to gauge situations as either being moral or immoral. Human cloning and other forms of genetic modification are guised in the clothing of maximizing happiness through maximizing lives. This seems to be utilitarian in essence, but this is insufficient as a moral theory and disregards the individual and what his or her own feelings may be.

Utilitarianism has existed in various forms for thousands of years, but it wasn't until the early nineteenth century that Jeremy Bentham, who coined the term introduced it to the public. According to Bentham, utilitarianism was simply taking into account the happiness of all members involved in the result of an action one is about to take. In other words, trying to bring about the greatest amount of pleasure for all those involved would result in a morally correct decision. William H. Shaw interpretation of utilitarianism is as follows "an action is right if and only if it bring about at least as much net happiness as any other action the agent could have performed; otherwise it is wrong" (Shaw 10). This interpretation is less problematic, because it accounts for varying degrees of 'rightness' with regards to moral questions. One is required to make the choice that promotes the most happiness, subtracting unhappiness that one is able to make. Many people often confuse this with majority rule, i.e. the morally correct stance is the one that the most people agree upon. This is not the case, using happiness as the moral standard, the minority can be directly affected more so than the majority who could be indifferent to the issue entirely.

One major problem with utilitarianism is being able to predict the consequences of one's actions. Utilitarians think of the result of an action as being the broad-based happiness or unhappiness that results, even trickles down if you will from one's actions. This requires a person to be able to cover every possible aspect and even account for unforeseen accidents. Helping someone with their groceries and then accidentally slamming the door on their hand obviously did not maximize happiness in that situation. Giving money to a homeless man, who then goes and gets drunk and attacks someone did not maximize pleasure for anyone. This is a major pitfall for utilitarians, one which can't be reconciled, especially with regards to the complex field of human engineering.

Bioethics has concerned itself with the morality of science and places particular emphasis on the morality of manipulating human genes for reproduction, or a form of eugenics, where children's birth defects can be eliminated, and in the area of human cloning which has dominated the ethical community as of late. The need for a comprehensive system is clear. Ethical relativism will only result in a quagmire of society imposing their 'morals' and many third world countries offering their country as a cover for certain medical practices that other countries may deem unethical, simply for monetary gain. An example of this could be in abortion where Catholic Ireland outlaws it and deems it immoral, while in Japan it is looked at as simply another means of birth-control. It is therefore agreed upon that a system that outlines the ethics for cloning or manipulating a human being is necessary. Is utilitarianism up for the challenge?

Cheap custom writing service can write essays on What is Right? What is wrong?

First of all we need to ask what the goal of human cloning is. A common response would be that it provides certain couples who are unable to conceive a chance to have a genetic representation of themselves as a child. Another reason for human cloning may be the "utilization" of the clones for studying the human body, its susceptibility to congenital disease, and the reversal of genetic diseases and disorders. Still another, more drastic reason may be to have an extra body, in order to have extra parts in case of disease, illness, plastic surgery, or whatever the case may be. One commonality exists in all these situations, in that the clone is being utilized to the benefit of mankind. The question needs to be asked whether humans take precedent over other life forms. Many utilitarians would say they do, in which case all these circumstances are moral in that they are maximizing happiness for the "people" directly involved in the actions. Plus, through the studying and observing of the clones many other humans will be affected in positive ways. Diseases and illnesses that have plagued mankind, may be better understood, leading to their prevention or eradication, the end result of this will be even greater happiness. Now what if we count the clones as human-beings and we take their happiness into account, once again I believe that utilitarianism would find all the situations I outlined above to be morally correct. Yes, of course the clones wouldn't be happy, but the rest of the world would benefit to some extent, leading me to believe that the greater good lays in cloning human beings.

Now there is a case in which the utilitarian has found human cloning to be morally correct, it would be redundant to go over his feelings toward any other sort of genetic manipulation or the cloning of individual body parts because these would all fall well below the standard just set. Plus, they don't even deal with a person (clone), so there could be no unhappiness present. So if these things are morally correct, why do many people find them morally repugnant? Another problem of utilitarianism is that it can condone immoral conduct, disguising it as moral, by simply using its moral calculator. Utilitarianism has trapped itself, under this system if a man with no living family members who had raped and killed repeatedly is shot and killed by another person, his death can only bring happiness. Even if unhappiness results, it will be substantially less than the happiness, but do we really believe that it is okay to shoot someone who had acted immorally (without a trial I assume). Another well-known problem occurs when for example a boat is sinking and by throwing a fat man off the boat the lives of all the other occupants can be saved. Is it morally responsible to take one life to save others. This transposes itself onto the controversy over cloning. Does the clone have less a right to life or to a fruitful life than other individuals? Is cloning or genetic manipulation morally right because it will increase some people's happiness?

Utilitarianism fails in that inevitably in the complex formula of maximizing happiness for the greatest number, some poor souls will be caught in the minority. Is there happiness being maximized? Do they possess less personhood or less capacity to tell whether one action is morally right and another action is morally reprehensible? This author doesn't think so. The value of life is something that utilitarians believe they can compare and contrast. Person A, has more of a right to live than Person B, because Person A has greater potential to do something fruitful with his or her life and will bring about more happiness. What utilitarians fail to cover is the grand idea of individual rights. Each person is entitled to certain human rights, which cannot be stripped away in search of greater happiness for more people. They also fail to include the right of humanity as a whole, what is good for mankind? Where will this bring mankind, and subsequently where will it bring all life on our planet?

WORKS CITED

Bailey, James Woods. Utilitarianism, Institutions, and Justice. New York Oxford

University Press, 17.

Maclean, Anne. The Elimination of Morality Reflections on Utilitarianism and

Bioethics. New York Routelage, 1.

Shaw, William H. Contemporary Ethics Taking Account of Utilitarianism. Malden

Blackwell Publishers, 1.

Please note that this sample paper on What is Right? What is wrong? is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on What is Right? What is wrong?, we are here to assist you. Your cheap research papers on What is Right? What is wrong? will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.

Order your authentic assignment from cheap essay writing service and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!