The utilitarianism and the philosophy of justice refer to this ethical case. The utilitarian system nonetheless fits in well on the basis of its values that have the least damage and the greatest benefit for all (Melden). In the case of Google limiting PragerU’s images, applying the principles of utilitarianism, it is clear that the result of the behavior leads to more pleasure rather than discontent. The benefits of this measure actually outweigh the drawbacks. For example, limiting the videos of the PragerU helps many parents who have their children shielded from high brainwashing ability videos. Also, many little children have been safeguarded by this action because they cannot watch these videos that have the capability of hurting them due to lack of critical, evaluative and thinking skills.
On the other hand, examining the impact of the Google`s decision of restricting the PragerU`s videos on PragerU, it is clear that the company is likely to suffer financial loses. This loss will be again to other companies and won`t affect people directly on average. Moreover, a large percentage of the revenue of PragerU comes from donations and not by watching its videos (Mullin). Thusly, the loss associated with this decision is small and the effect to its employees is minimal. Besides, the decision cannot affect PragerU`s mission of coming up with educative videos. This is notwithstanding the fact that they are not restricted from having such videos on their website. It is, therefore, evident that the overall impact of the action results to a greater benefit or happiness to many. This is the line to the utilitarianism theory which examines the appropriateness of an action based on its overall impacts.
The utilitarian theory, in this case, presents a robust sense pertaining to the restriction of the PragerU`s videos by Google. Unlike the Justice theory which looks at the fairness of an action by relying on laws without minding on the consequences, utilitarianism examines an action in a wider perspective based on the consequences so as to decide whether it is advantageous or not. It, therefore, regards an action to be pursued to have the potential of leading to a greater benefit to a large group of individuals as opposed to benefitting a smaller group. Similarly, this theory can make PragerU reflect on why its services have been restricted and it will make decisions that will benefit children to grow morally upright and this is actually the happiness of the community (Bykvist). Accordingly, PragerU will be prompted to make a decision that goes in line with their mission of creating educative videos and not that can corrupt or brainwash children.
In summary, examining the harm associated with restricting the PragerU`s videos, it is a few individuals who are affected by the decision. Also, the harm or effect itself is very minimal. The associated benefits, on the other hand, benefit many individuals in the society and this is indeed superior to the harm. The utilitarianism theory actually reflects on what is expected from the society. While we always respect and desire to reach justice, it is never the first objective that the society seeks to achieve and therefore, its morality ought not to be valued more compared to the greater benefit for all.
Bykvist, Krister. Utilitarianism. London: Continuum, 2010. Print.
Melden, A. Ethical Theories. Read Books Ltd., 2013. Print.
Mullin, Joe. “Prageru Sues Youtube, Says It Censors Conservative Videos.” Ars Technica. N.p., 2017. Web. 10 Nov. 2017.