Moral Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Moral Philosophy Essay Hare uses the â€Å"indirect† version of utilitarianism. Hare believes that individuals can deliberate at the intuitive level. In dire situations where there is no time to evaluate decisions on a critical level, intuition maybe used to commit most acts. Direct utilitarianism follows a rigid rules approach to utilitarianism. Hare’s approach implies that certain acts done intuitively will become moral because the decision was made on a gut level instinct instead of simply following a set of rules. Hare attempts to distinguish his theories from â€Å"crude† or direct utilitarianism. However, it would seem that he does not remove the problems of direct utilitarianism, but he manages to create new ones. â€Å"An act (for act utilitarians) or rule (for rule utilitarians) is right if and only if the act or rule maximizes the utility of all persons (or sentient beings). † 1 Following the direct utilitarianism approach, there is no flexibility for human emotion or consequences. In addition, there is no true definition of what is right for all persons. An example would be a decision by a surgeon in an emergency room to save the life of an elderly priest or that of a young man that was in a terrible car accident. By the direct utilitarianism approach, the surgeon would have to ascertain what would be best for all persons. Such a decision would realistically be made deliberation and gut instinct. The direct utilitarianism approach does not answer what is best for everyone in this type of circumstance. The problem with Hare’s approach is one can prove virtually any moral dilemma with custom tailored and non-realistic circumstances where gut instinct would be used as the determining factor for the situation. There are no set guidelines for defining what is moral for these extenuating circumstances. Hare in general often speaks about conflicting desires, and he seems to adhere to Plato’s notion that being good coincides with being informed. What Hare fails to address is that some individuals might desire to do evil. Hare presumes that the individual is going to conform to the standards of society and use deliberation to not commit heinous and horrific acts. With the direct utilitarianism approach, individuals will act for the good of everyone thus more likely to conform to moral restrictions placed upon them by society. Hare’s approach states that individuals will follow gut instinct to do what is moral but at the same time Hare’s approach calls for individuals to follow deliberation when making some decisions. For the individual that is a sociopath, Hare’s response would be that the sociopath would â€Å"condemn those desires at a critical level†. 2 With the assumption of individual conformity to the group’s standard, Hare is contracting his gut instinct part of the decision making progress. Hare argues that direct utilitarianism cannot accommodate political rights because the government is an institutional set of rules and regulations. Direct utilitarianism assumes that the government knows what is best for the majority. Hare’s approach would require the individual to deliberate as to follow the rules set forth by the government. Using Hare’s approach it would be ethical for an individual to refuse to pay taxes or speed on the highway because there would’ve been a deliberation and analysis based on the critical level of thinking. Hare’s approach is more direct utilitarianism on the political issues because the individual will most likely make a choice that is inherently good for everyone to avoid negative consequences such as a speeding ticket or imprisonment. Each decision or choice that the individual makes results in some type of consequence. Hare’s approach to indirect utilitarianism does not address consequences. The direct utilitarianism addresses consequences because the individual is going to follow rules that are set forth for the good of the whole. Direct utilitarianism requires conformity to societal standards to maximize individual happiness. Hare’s approach requires that the individual deliberate and make a decision. Yet, the other part of his approach requires the individual to follow gut instinct while conforming to good of the whole to make an ethical decision. Instead of refuting the direct utilitarianism approach, Hare is supporting the notion that we all have a set of rules that we inherently follow. To strictly follow Hare’s approach to indirect utilitarianism, society would be in total chaos because virtually any circumstance can be manipulated to appear as though the individual was following instinct and thus making a moral decision. There are no overall guidelines for extenuating circumstances with Hare’s approach to indirect utilitarianism. Hare creates more chaos in trying to refute the direct utilitarianism approach instead of providing solid arguments for the nature of human beings and ethical decisions.