Writing for Intro to Ethics

For the course of Ethics I am in we were assigned a short two page writing assignment and given
a prompt:
Drawing on Taurek's "Should the Numbers Count" and Tobias Wolff's "The Night in Question,"
briefly develop a scenario that challenges the utilitarian assumption that the moral point of view
is necessarily an impartial point of view. Explain the challenge. Raise an objection or two
against it. Reply to the objection.

In class we read and discussed two articles concerning the Utilitarian view of impartiality and its
essentiality in making moral decisions. We were to draw our own conclusions from the ideas of
those writings and establish our argument for and against impartiality in moral decision making.

First, define Utilitarianism and its reliance on impartiality to use that definition as a base
throughout the argument.
Second, create a challenge or problem example. This should be an extreme what if case
scenario to exaggerate a moral dilemma that can be argued in different ways.
Third, reply to the challenge/problem as Utilitarian to establish what they would do in
that situation and why based off of their principles.
Fourth, reply as yourself, or what you would do in that situation. Refute the Utilitarian
principles by shedding doubt on their claim that impartiality is essential in moral decision
making.
Last, write a brief conclusion connecting utilitarian claims and refuting them with your
own.

Here is the assignment

The Constraint of Utilitarian Impartiality

A fundamental element of the Utilitarian moral view is the idea of impartiality. To a
utilitarian, the consequence of moral actions and the action that yields the most benefit for the
most people is their main concern. To achieve the greatest consequence, one must be impartial.
To be impartial in a situation, one must act as a third party judge and remove themselves from
the situation personally. No feelings, bias or prejudices can be in their state of mind. Then, the
impartial judge can make the moral decision based upon the utilitarian principles of utility and
overall net benefit the action will produce. This is often difficult because as humans, we often let
our personal preferences and prejudices affect our moral judgment. This raises the question of
which one is right in a moral dilemma: impartiality or our personal preferences?
Imagine you are the captain of the ship and there is an iceberg in your path of water. In
order to avoid the iceberg and the death of twenty people, however, you will have to abruptly
turn the ship so that one of your workers will fall over board and die. The worker is not a
stranger to you, in fact he is a longtime friend of yours and has saved your life in a past accident.
The other twenty people on the ship are total strangers. The questions here are: what action do
you take and who do you save? Do you set aside your personal bias and save the twenty because
there would be more lives to save? Or, do you save your friend because personal preference is
morally just?
If I were a Utilitarian the decision would be easy; save the twenty lives on the ship. I
would veer the ship to miss the iceberg and let my worker fall to his death. The net benefit of
lives I saved outweigh the one. I would disregard the personal preference for my friend, step

back from the situation and make my decision based upon the consequence that would yield the
most benefit for the most people. It would not matter that my worker friend had saved my life
before, I would become ignorant to the past. Taking on the role as an impartial, third-party judge
is crucial for a utilitarian to make a moral judgment.
I, however, object to the utilitarian notion that the morally right decision is the impartial
one. The action I would take in the scenario would be to save the worker. I believe my personal
preference is morally right. If the worker had saved my life in the past too, I would concede that
we have a sort of moral contract to one another, a life for a life idea. My bias is my influence
and therefore what I believe to be right. I value the life of my friend because arguably to a
utilitarian, my friend could provide more net benefits than the lives of the twenty. Maybe the
twenty people on the ship are drug dealers and cause strife in the world and my worker friend is
also a doctor that helps thousands of people. The one to save then would be my friend.
Sometimes impartiality is not effective because it is objective and therefore the consequences are
not as regarded as utilitarian believe them to be. If you are subjective in your moral beliefs, then
the consequences are looked into deeper. Impartiality constrains the moral judge to only think of
numbers and hardly consequence. Therefore, I would take into account my preferences, knowing
my friend was a good person who brought benefits to the world rather than taking a chance on
twenty who could be negative influences to people.
The utilitarian view is challenged in the scenario because it brings the constraint of
impartiality to light. If utilitarians are only concerned with the consequence of numbers, the net
benefit they strive for could potentially backfire. By taking into account the situation at hand and
not removing yourself, the moral decision made is more likely to be the morally right one and
justifiable on many accounts.

Comments provided by my TA:

A thoughtful and well-organized discussion of the impartiality principle. You do a great job
outlining the concept and offering an example that challenges the requirement. However, the
paper would be stronger if you gave some reasons why personal preference should be morally
relevant, rather than just claiming that it is. Also, there seems to be a misunderstanding of
utilitarianism near the end of the paper. All that utilitarians care about are consequences. They
just think that the consequences of saving five people are usually better than the consequences of
saving one. Next time be sure to give reasons in support of your claims, and double check your
understanding of key concepts. Overall, promising work.

Take away from comments:

It is important to define key concepts and clearly explain points of view.
To improve: back up claims with more evidence.
Double check to make sure there are no contradictions and the key concepts stay the
same throughout.

Here is a revision of the assignment: (changes highlighted)

The Constraint of Utilitarian Impartiality

A fundamental element of the Utilitarian moral view is the idea of impartiality. To a
utilitarian, the consequence of moral actions and the action that yields the most benefit for the
most people is their main concern. To achieve the greatest consequence, one must be impartial.
To be impartial in a situation, one must act as a third party judge and remove themselves from
the situation personally. No feelings, bias or prejudices can be in their state of mind. Then, the
impartial judge can make the moral decision based upon the utilitarian principles of utility and
overall net benefit the action will produce. This is often difficult because as humans, we often let

our personal preferences and prejudices affect our moral judgment. This raises the question of
which one is right in a moral dilemma: impartiality or our personal preferences?
Imagine you are the captain of the ship and there is an iceberg in your path of water. In
order to avoid the iceberg and the death of twenty people, however, you will have to abruptly
turn the ship so that one of your workers will fall over board and die. The worker is not a
stranger to you, in fact he is a longtime friend of yours and has saved your life in a past accident.
The other twenty people on the ship are total strangers. The questions here are: what action do
you take and who do you save? Do you set aside your personal bias and save the twenty because
there would be more lives to save? Or, do you save your friend because personal preference is
morally just?
If I were a Utilitarian the decision would be easy; save the twenty lives on the ship. I
would veer the ship to miss the iceberg and let my worker fall to his death. The net benefit of
lives I saved outweigh the one. I would disregard the personal preference for my friend, step
back from the situation and make my decision based upon the consequence that would yield the
most benefit for the most people. It would not matter that my worker friend had saved my life
before, I would become ignorant to the past. Taking on the role as an impartial, third-party judge
is crucial for a utilitarian to make a moral judgment.
I, however, object to the utilitarian notion that the morally right decision is the impartial
one. The action I would take in the scenario would be to save the worker. I believe my personal
preference is morally right. If the worker had saved my life in the past too, I would concede that
we have a sort of moral contract to one another, a life for a life idea. My bias is my influence
and therefore what I believe to be right. I value the life of my friend because arguably to a
utilitarian, my friend could provide more net benefits than the lives of the twenty. Maybe the
twenty people on the ship are drug dealers that cause strife in the world whereas my worker
friend is a doctor that helps thousands of people. The one to save would be my friend.

Impartiality is not a very effective basis for moral decisions because it is objective and therefore
the consequences of the action are not as taken into account as utilitarians believe them to be. If
you are subjective in your moral beliefs, then the consequences are looked into deeper. By
allowing emotions and personal preference to be morally relevant you can make better moral
decisions because the effects of those decisions are thoroughly thought out. While saving the
twenty drug dealers would be saving more lives, saving the doctor would be beneficial for many
more lives in the future. Impartiality constrains the moral judge to only think of numbers and
hardly consequence. Therefore, I would take into account my preferences, knowing my friend
was a good person who brought benefits to the world rather than taking a chance on twenty who
could be negative influences to people.
The utilitarian view is challenged in the scenario because it brings the constraint of
impartiality to light. If utilitarians are interested in the consequence of numbers, the net benefit
they strive for could potentially backfire. By taking into account the situation at hand and not
removing yourself, the moral decision made is more likely to be the morally right one and
justifiable on many accounts.

Caseys Comments:
Your guide ends up with insightful advice near the end, but would be stronger if the earlier sections could
also include some pointers, in addition to their current emphasis on your particular assignment. You
might consider expanding on some of the steps in the composition process. How did you interpret the
assignment prompt and guidelines? Did you outline? Whats the best way for someone else to plan and
execute a Philosophy paper? If you decide to revise, consider elaborating significantly, especially about
the writing process. Also, make sure to address your reader and give her advice directly. Try to match
your tone and style to your groups stated goal of making humanities writing seem more approachable.
Draft and Revision:

Between your draft and your revised paper, it appears that only a few sentences have changed. How does
this fit in with your plan, in the reflection portion of your guide, to find and incorporate more research to
back up your points? Your reflection doesnt directly address the question of substantial revision. I
would be interested to see more of a meta narrative here---a reflection on the revision process and how it
might help students reading your guide.