If approaching the ethicality of an act from the point of view presented by Jhon Stuart Mill, we lean towards utilitarianism and believe this to be ethical but in reality, we are ultimately reducing opinions to nothing. According to the idea of Haidt, even though the society has instilled in us the idea of everything becoming ethical if there is a greater good, we still have an insight that helps us differentiate the right from the wrong. This insight is intuition and if we use it for judging how ethical an act is we would ultimately do what is in favor of everybody and not just the majority. An idea states that the means of an act can be justified by the ends and if this is the approach we take on then ultimately every act can be considered ethical however the basis on which the good and bad are judged are how beneficial it is or not is.
This is where this approach comes in and by solely agreeing to it, we defy what tends to be humane. An individual can never justify his or her actions if even one person is getting harmed; if not a person then a life of an animal or a plant. By ignoring the basic questions such as how many are going to be harmed, we try to escape the unethical aspects of our actions.
If argued that by taking care of the majority’s needs even if through unethical means we can create in them a sense of happiness and that personnel satisfaction is above all then this approach is somewhat justified but yet again still not acceptable.
However if compared with the complete opposite approach (Deontology), considering acts ethical if they are beneficial to most people seems like a better approach. Just because most people are doing it does not mean it becomes ethical.
But for instance, if you keep yourself in the hot seat and consider the simple question that if it were happening to you, would you consider it good or bad? When there is such a dilemma, ethical approaches fail to serve a purpose. This is the reason every approach is accurate to some degrees for every individual.
We each have a brain that helps us in differentiating between the good and bad and that too according to the situation. Thus an act can become ethical and unethical depending on the situation. Therefore the question is always ‘How ethical…?’ and not ‘Why is it ethical..?’ It can never be answered through one side and will always remain open to debate.
In conclusion, the degree of how right this approach is or how wrong it is varies from person to person and I believe it is not completely ethical to justify actions just because a certain amount of people are benefiting from it even if it is in majority. But relative to other ideas, it can be ethical.