Societal positions effect on one's view point

An interesting concept in this section’s readings was the difference between Utilitarianism and Absolutism. In Thomas Nagel’s “War and Massacre” he states that the utilitarianism view point gives primacy to the concern with what will happen. In Nagel’s writings utilitarianism seems to be a view in which the end justifies the means. On the other hand Nagel presents the idea of Absolutism which as he states focuses on what one is doing. This view unlike utilitarianism seems to make the stand that the end does not justify the means. These two ways of thinking are of particular interest because of the fact that it appears that the position that you hold in society could greatly impact which side you agree with.

            From Nagel’s writings we can see that the Utilitarianism view is closely associated with a person that is in power or that has power over a large number of people. This view point is most often held by people such as the president or general of an army that must command a large number of people and do what is right for the whole group even at the cost of a few.  Nagel states that in this view “one should try, either individually or through institutions, to maximize good and minimize evil, and that if faced with the possibility of preventing a great evil by producing a lesser, one should choose the lesser evil” (Nagel, pg 489). Through this way of thinking one is able to claim justification for his actions, in order to produce the desired result.

            From Nagel’s absolutism view we can see that this is a view that is on the more personal level. This way of thinking is focused solely on oneself and the way that one interacts with the rest of the world. The absolutism view is intriguing because of the number of restrictions that one must abide by in this view. Nagel makes the statement that it is important to clarify that “absolutism requires that we avoid murder at all cost, not that we prevent it at all cost” (Nagel, pg 493). Nagel’s statement is powerful because he is ensuring that we know that in the absolutism view, at no point in time is murder or leaving someone to die considered acceptable. To this point Nagel presents an example of two extremes in which one cannot justify their actions under the absolutism view.  The first is in the situation in which one tortures and kills a person in order to gain information on an enemy threat, the second situation is when a building is on fire and the rescuer chooses to leave one person behind in order to save several people.  In both cases Nagel states that “absolutism retains its force in that one cannot claim justification for the violation. It does not become alright” (Nagel, pg 496).

            The most intriguing part of Nagel’s statements between the differences of view point of utilitarianism and absolutism; is that the position that one holds in society has a great effect on the view point a person may have. For example the president of the United States must ensure that he do what is best for the country at all cost. In this position he has no other choice but to have a utilitarian view point because he must think of the country and its people first, even if that means resorting to taking the lives of a few to save the lives of millions. A person that is not in a position of power can more easily take the view of absolutism because he only needs to worry about his actions and how it effects those around him.