Overview
Hi! Please form a response to the following discussion post:
The Utlititarian theory is a theory that was created to benefit the happiness and balance of all the people worldwide. Therefore, although the theory strives to bring happiness, one would have to analyze the theories pros and cons in order to determine wether the discussed moral issue, poverty and world hunger, would be achiveable in today's day and age.
Promoting happiness is something that everyone in the world understands which is why this theory is so simple yet so complicated to understand. The work of Peter Singer, a well known utilitarian tried explaining how this theory would help solve the issue of poverty and world hunger world wide. He explains that if everyone were to give a portion of their income towards the cause to stop the suffering of all these children and adults, that the issue would simply dissapear as everyone would be able to not only afford food, but living conditions. By doing this, not only will happiness be spread, but it will envoke others to perform more acts of goodness which would transform our society to become more kind towards others and think about wether their actions will cause harm or and sort of damage towards others.
Although the theory provides a great way to resolve many issues world wide, the theory has many holes that would stop it from actually coming true. For example, in order to end world poverty, it would require for everyone to pitch into the cause. Even though most people would abide by this, not everyone would want to give over their money as a lot of families are low incoming families that live paycheck to paycheck and need all the money they can get to support their families. This alone explains that although the theory causes happiness, stripping a low income family from its low source income causes some sorts of damage towards others. Therefore, the theory does not spread maximum happiness for all. Altough the theory is a good idea, I just do not belive it would work in today's world.