Non-Scalar Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism: Evaluating its Application in Moral Dilemmas

    Title: Non-Scalar Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism: Evaluating its Application in Moral Dilemmas Introduction In the realm of ethical theories, non-scalar hedonistic act utilitarianism (N.H.A.U.) stands as a prominent approach that focuses on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering. This essay explores the key tenets of N.H.A.U., presents a hypothetical scenario that challenges its application, and evaluates whether this situation constitutes a successful objection to N.H.A.U. Through this analysis, the essay aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of N.H.A.U. and its limitations. Thesis Statement This essay argues that while the hypothetical situation does present a challenge to N.H.A.U., it does not constitute a successful objection to the theory due to its inherent flexibility and ability to consider special obligations within the framework of overall utility. Explanation of Non-Scalar Hedonistic Act Utilitarianism N.H.A.U., as defined by Shafer-Landau (2020), is an ethical theory that seeks to maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering without assigning different weights to people's happiness or suffering. This theory holds that each person's happiness and suffering should be taken into account equally, without any hierarchies or prioritization based on personal relationships or emotions. N.H.A.U. emphasizes the principle of impartiality, where actions are assessed solely based on their consequences for overall well-being. N.H.A.U. differs from scalar hedonistic act utilitarianism, which assigns different values or weights to different people's happiness or suffering. In contrast, N.H.A.U. treats each individual's happiness and suffering as morally equivalent. This approach focuses on the net balance of happiness over suffering in order to determine the moral worth of an action. The Situation: A Dilemma of Sacrificing Special Obligations Consider a scenario where an individual, Mary, finds herself torn between two conflicting moral obligations. Mary's best friend, Sarah, is desperately ill and requires immediate medical attention. However, Mary's cousin, John, is also in need of assistance due to financial hardship. Both situations demand Mary's attention and support, but she can only help one at a time. According to N.H.A.U., Mary should select the option that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes suffering for the greatest number of people. Evaluation of the Situation as an Objection to N.H.A.U. The presented scenario challenges N.H.A.U. as it seemingly requires Mary to sacrifice her special obligation to her best friend in favor of assisting her cousin. From a purely utilitarian standpoint, if helping John would result in greater overall happiness and reduced suffering than helping Sarah, N.H.A.U. would dictate that Mary prioritize John's needs. This conflict between special obligations and the impartiality principle of N.H.A.U. creates moral tension. However, this situation does not constitute a successful objection to N.H.A.U. The flexibility inherent in N.H.A.U. allows for the recognition and consideration of special obligations within the moral calculus. While N.H.A.U. emphasizes impartiality, it does not require complete disregard for personal relationships or emotional ties. In this case, Mary could weigh the intensity of her friendship with Sarah against the severity of John's financial hardship and make a decision that maximizes overall happiness while still considering her special obligation to her friend. N.H.A.U., when properly understood and applied, acknowledges that there are situations where special obligations may hold significant weight in determining the morally right course of action. The theory does not demand absolute impartiality but rather aims to balance competing interests while still prioritizing overall utility. Conclusion Non-scalar hedonistic act utilitarianism (N.H.A.U.) is an ethical theory that places importance on maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering without assigning different values to individual experiences. While the hypothetical situation presented challenges N.H.A.U.'s application by requiring the sacrifice of a special obligation, it does not constitute a successful objection to the theory. Properly understood, N.H.A.U. allows for the consideration of special obligations within the framework of overall utility. By recognizing the flexibility inherent in N.H.A.U., individuals can make morally sound decisions that prioritize both impartiality and personal relationships.  

Sample Answer