Final answer:
Utilitarianism would assess the moral correctness of a man stealing to feed his family by the action's outcome on overall happiness. The principle of utility would justify the theft if it results in a greater balance of happiness, considering broader social consequences.
Step-by-step explanation:
When examining the scenario of a man stealing from a grocery store to feed his starving family, the utilitarian principle would evaluate this situation by considering the action's consequences for the overall happiness and well-being of those affected. Utilitarianism suggests that moral correctness is determined by the greatest good for the greatest number.
Thus, if the theft leads to a greater overall satisfaction among a larger group of people than those who might suffer from the loss, utilitarianism might justify the man's actions. For example, the family's relief from starvation could be viewed as a significant increase in happiness that outweighs the store's loss, especially if the store is a prosperous business that can absorb the loss with minimal impact.
However, this approach also recognizes that such acts could lead to broader social consequences if everyone were to steal to resolve personal issues, ultimately undermining societal trust and order. Utility in this context is not confined to the happiness of individuals involved in the immediate incident, but extends to the wider implications of such actions on the community and the societal structures that support mutual trust and cohesion.
It is important to note that utilitarianism assesses morality based on the end result, focusing on the balance of happiness versus unhappiness produced by an action. This differs from virtue ethics, which would prioritize the character of the individual and the intent behind the action, rather than just the outcome.