While reading through the various types of moral arguments, I was happy to see some philosophical ideas that I have been studying in my Justice & Civil Society course. For instance, one approach to justice is Utilitarianism, which believes that the happiness and welfare of society should be maximized for all human beings all the time. The consequentialist moral argument supports Utilitarianism because of universalism- the belief held that everyone is equally morally important and that everyone’s intrinsic values, like happiness, are of equal importance. According to the universalistic maximizing consequentialist, it is morally good to produce happiness for everyone globally, holding constant that everyone’s happiness is treated as equally important.

In studying Utilitarianism, I have seen how this philosophical approach to justice affects our moral obligations or viewpoints on things, such as charitable giving and sweatshops. For instance, Utilitarians who believe in Edward Singer’s strong principle would say that you are morally obligated to keep giving to charities and the extreme poor until you are sacrificing something that has comparable moral significance- like your happiness of attending the University of Richmond. In other words, keep giving until the happiness you sacrifice is greater than the happiness the other person would gain if you donated that marginal amount of money to them. Similarly, even though several of us would object to the idea and institution of sweatshops, Utilitarians would advocate for sweatshops to be built and ran in places of the world where they do not exist yet, such as underdeveloped countries like Malawi. Utilitarians believe that sweatshops provide greater happiness to sweatshop workers because if these workers are from underdeveloped countries and are living in extreme poverty, then the opportunity of improving one’s and one’s family’s economic well-being is far more significant than the harsh conditions and work environment that they- sweatshop workers- are subject to.