![the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few origin the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few origin](http://blog.kissmetrics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/needs-of-many-outweight-needs-of-few.jpg)
In Popular Science Monthly Volume III via Wikimedia Commons. On utilitarian grounds, actions and inactions which benefit few people and harm more people will be deemed morally wrong while actions and inactions which harm fewer people and benefit more people will be deemed morally right. On consequentialist grounds, actions and inactions whose negative consequences outweigh the positive consequences will be deemed morally wrong while actions and inactions whose positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences will be deemed morally right.
![the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few origin the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few origin](https://static.rapidonline.com/catalogueimages/product/89/18/s89-1886p01wm.jpg)
For consequentialism, the moral rightness or wrongness of an act depends on the consequences it produces. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism.
![the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few origin the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few origin](https://img0.etsystatic.com/109/0/8734987/il_570xN.904416176_8ip6.jpg)
The discussion is divided into three parts: the first part explains what utilitarianism is, the second discusses some varieties (or types) of utilitarianism, and the third explores whether utilitarianism is persuasive and reasonable. The aim of this chapter is to explain why utilitarianism reaches such a conclusion as described above, and then examine the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarianism. In other words, the action produced more pleasure or happiness than pain or unhappiness, that is, it increased net utility. Peter’s act of stealing is morally right because it produced more good than bad. This justification is based on the calculation that the benefits of the theft outweigh the losses caused by the theft. Therefore, for utilitarians, Peter’s stealing from John (the “means”) can be justified by the fact that the money was used for the treatment of Sandra and the tuition fees of Ann and Sam (the “end”). In our example, Peter stole from one person who has less need for the money, and spent the money on three people who have more need for the money. For utilitarians, stealing in itself is neither bad nor good what makes it bad or good is the consequences it produces. Utilitarianism, however, will say what Peter has done is morally right. Therefore, we will say that what Peter has done- stealing from John-is morally wrong. One could say that stealing is morally wrong. So, he steals $1000 from John in order to pay for Sandra’s treatment and to pay the tuition fees of Ann and Sam. From his perspective, there are only two alternatives: either he pays by stealing or he does not. Peter has no source of income and he cannot get a loan even John (his friend and a millionaire) has refused to help him. Although he has no money, his family still depends on him his unemployed wife (Sandra) is sick and needs $500 for treatment, and their little children (Ann and Sam) have been thrown out of school because they could not pay tuition fees ($500 for both of them). Spock asks his friend not to grieve and starts the phrase only to be completed by Kirk.Let us start our introduction to utilitarianism with an example that shows how utilitarians answer the following question, “Can the ends justify the means?” Imagine that Peter is an unemployed poor man in New York. Kirk rushes to his aid but is unable to help his friend. Because of this, he has been exposed to a fatal dose of radiation and is dying. Spock had to enter the warp core of the ship to repair the engines so that they could escape destruction. The 2nd time this is mentioned is the more remembered. However, he will still follow Kirk since he is not only his commanding officer, but, more importantly, his friend. Spock then derides his friend, saying that Kirk shouldn’t have taken the promotion since this has taken him from what he actually loves: being the commander of a starship. Kirk, now an admiral decides to take command due to the emergency. Spock is actually in command of the Enterprise when it receives a distress call from another starship. The first time is relatively early in the film. The story behind the quote: The quote was actually mentioned twice in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.