An argument in favor of what the U.S. Supreme Court did in Kelo is that although some individuals are displaced they are paid well for their land and the majority of the community benefits. The philosophy of Utilitarianism supports this result. It says a moral act is one which provides the greatest good for the greatest number.
1. What are the pros and cons of this philosophy?
It makes somewhat sense as to why under certain circumstances there is a need for the U.S. Supreme Court to side with what the beneficial factors are to society when it comes to certain developments. I feel that it would need to be a moral act that makes sense just as stated that it should provide the greatest good for the greatest number. It makes a lot of sense in certain case scenarios where if in certain areas that would need to have a hospital built in order for public to use in case of emergencies or certain health needs.
I personally would be willing to settle and find somewhere else to move for this cause. The cons of following the philosophy of Utilitarianism would be as if instead of building a hospital and goes right on ahead and builds a large x-rated adult shop would be a terrible thing to do. This would look bad through all aspects of the idea or build and would not be morally beneficial or good for the greatest number of people in the area.
2. Do you agree with this philosophy as applied to the situation in Kelo?
In reference to the Kelo case, it was a very sad story and the outcome did not result in any good in the end. It was not morally or ethically right to take over the land that Kelo and others lived on.
The story has not ever fulfilled its purpose or reasoning. It was unjust and did not seem to have precedence. It was nice to hear that the public stood up to say the least and leaving a historical imprint so that it doesn’t happen again, at least hopefully.