Perhaps, Amani, you might already have your criticism of Utility:
In Utility, man is considered rational. We are supposed to make logical choices based upon maximum benefit.
But, humans are not rational. Reality is far more complicated than reason alone.
So, each situation needs to be decided individually.
Because each case must be decided individually, as humans are not purely reasonable, Utility is not functional for describing what is best, for what is best requires more than just reason alone.
I don’t know if this helps or is even correct, but it is something that came to mind.
Yes, that’s one of the issues with pure utilitarianism.
Maximum benefit for whom? Self? Society?
Is it rationable? [that is, can someone make a logical case]
Is it reasonable? [that is, what would a common man likely think]
Can something unreasonable be rationalized?
Can something reasonable be illogical?
All good questions I think.
In the Netherlands, the “right to die” has been law for a long time now.
There is a dark side to right to die.
Doctors often encourage older patients that it would be best for the family if they agree to die.
To me, this is unethical.
There’s extremes to every opinion. The answer is finding a reasonable diplomatic middle.
Exactly! In compromise, nobody is fully happy. That is the point of it. It is awkward. It forms a status quo of an uneasy treaty, where everybody gets partial wins, but nobody gets the whole cake.
Yet, nobody walks away hungry either.
Doesn’t matter if someone else does Grey. Let them. Work on your own opinions and find your own consistency if that’s important for you.
Justice isn’t blind and people play favorites.