The question asked is “Is utilitarianism a better moral theory than natural law theory? Why yes or no?”, in order to address this question we must first deconstruct it, and understand each of its parts. When the question is asking us to make the distinction of the “better moral theory” I assume it is asking if, either utilitarianism or the natural law theory better explains, why a specific action is wrong or why we ought to act in a certain way. Moral theory essentially rationalizes and determines our conduct, right and wrong. It provides us with a framework upon which we can discuss, reason and evaluate our actions within a given situation that raises moral issues. Now we have established an understanding of what is meant by “better moral …show more content…
The first one being that the notation that a greater power, being God, influences our judgements is highly unlikely and improbable. There is no scientific evidence that supports the existence of God, which contradicts that God could have instilled any type of moral judgement within us. Another being that, not all natural human tendencies are morally good, according to the 7 basic goods the desire to procreate is morally good. This would give sexual assault a justification, saying that rape is a form of procreation and therefore morally good. On the other side of the argument, Utilitarianism is a very consequentialist point of view, saying that our actions should be measured by the amount of pleasure they produce. So if our actions are wrong, the can still be seen as morally good if they produce the maximum amount of pleasure for the maximum amount of people. As Mark Timmons said in his book Moral Theory: An Introduction “which leads naturally to the simplest solution to the problem of moral conflict: utilitarianism.” (Timmons 797). Very much like a math problem, utilitarianism is a formula for the most pleasure, however it disregards personal interest and fails to respect persons and their
The bottom line is that utilitarianism has a derisory view in human character and motives. Man is not good and will never be good which is reflected on the current world scene today. Man will do anything that has a good result yet the process is immoral. Sproul sums this ethic up by stating, “In balancing positive and negative utilities and excluding from the equation the objective sacredness of all human life, utilitarianism arrives at morally repugnant actions” (41).
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
The theory that I have chosen is the theory of ethical utilitarianism. Many people use this theory every day without even knowing we are using it, it’s is so natural that we don’t even think about it or wonder how we became to using it. Ethical utilitarianism is one of the many answers to the question of why an action or something is morally correct or incorrect. This is has been an ongoing question that many people have made theories towards trying to answer it and the theory of utilitarianism is the one that I think answers it the most accurately.
rule utilitarianism also conflicts with justice and morality. Utility is a guide to choosing rules, not action. You must measure the consequences of an action as if they were a rule repeated many times in the same situation. Then choose which of those rules promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Say, for example if everyone were to lie such that it became a rule it should be acceptable as long as it results in greater utility. This can also be applied to the rape in war example; if it was done enough times then it is okay as long as the war ends and future pain are spared. Again this response requires that people accept such things like, raping women and murdering innocent people for the sake of winning a battle, as right in
Space does not take into consideration a point by point study of utilitarianism here. Suffice it to say that the greater part of good rationalists and scholars have thought that it was faulty. One primary issue is that utilitarianism if received, legitimizes as ethically proper things that are obviously corrupt. For instance, utilitarianism can be utilized to legitimize rebuffing an innocent man or oppressing a little gathering of individuals if such acts create a boost of results. Be that as it may, these demonstrations are unmistakably indecent paying little respect to how productive they may be for the best number. For this and different reasons, many masterminds have upheld the second sort of good hypothesis, deontological morals. Deontological morals are with regards to Scripture, customary good law, and instincts from judgment skills. "Deontological" originates from the Greek word on which signifies "restricting obligation (Johnson,
Defined as a doctrine in which actions that are morally good should be actions that promote happiness, utilitarianism is mainly concerned with "the greatest happiness", or "the greatest good for the greatest number”. However, it is clear that daily life often confronts us with situations in which applies individualism. Based on this fact, can we really use the concept of utilitarianism as a basis for morality? For a better understanding, we should know what are the utilitarian principles and how are they apply.
Imagine a child living in a hot, government owned apartment in Chicago. He has no father. With his single, jobless mother he struggles to the words of the founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” (The Declaration of Independence). This is one of the most famous phrases in the US Declaration of Independence and has become the underpinning of the dreams of millions of people around the world. Although the words are different, these sentiments are reflected in the political and economical policies of many democracies. While the notion of ‘happiness for all’ seems like the obvious solution to many of our persistent problems, we inevitably encounter conflicts between our actions and our morals. “The state is based on……the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities.”(Marx, 1992). This essay focuses on the issues of a prominent theory, Utilitarianism as it blends and encompasses both areas of Economics and Ethics which have become the basis of our governmental bodies.
The first moral theory studied in the course this semester was classical utilitarianism. Utilitarianism at its base argument is the attempt to maximize utility. When a person uses the moral theory of utilitarianism, they are looking at that action that benefits the most people or that has the higher good for the most people. Utilitarianism say that a person does a certain action that helps or benefits a higher number of people then that action is moral good. Before discussing Utilitarianism further, there is a need to explain what it has to do with consequentialism. Consequentialism is when a person looks at actions or something that someone does and judges that action based of the criteria that of consequences that action brings. To a consequentialist the only way for an action to be moral good the action itself and what the outcome it brings must be good. Let’s say that person is talking a final on Tuesday and decides to bring a bag of candy to the whole class during their final to have something to keep them up. If this action was to benefit the whole class and that action brings good consequence than that action is morally right to a consequ...
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
In Mill's book Utilitarianism he makes a distinction between act and rule-utilitarianism. Both types of utilitarianism are not without great flaw and therefore cannot exist as a base for moral principle. By adding the branch of rule-utilitarianism to the utilitarian tree Mill tries to compensate for some of act-utilitarian's flaws but as seen rule-utilitarianism has it's own objections and does not improve on the simple of act-utilitarianism thought out by previous philosophers. Rule-utilitarianism just patches-up some of act-utilitarian holes only it does not cover the entire thing. Therefore utilitarianism is not a good theory for moral rightness.
...ough its own capacity as a theory of both decision making and moral judgement, and by default- as act-utilitarianism has been proved too demanding and often immoral by our common sense intuition- I conclude that rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
A utilitarian approach to moral reasoning is also one where different options are weighed, although utilitarians are interested in minimising harm and maximising benefit. Importantly, utilitarians hold a universal perspective when reasoning, where they consider the impact upon all those who may be affected, who have interests of their own (Grace & Cohen 2013: 14-15).
A disadvantage of utilitarianism is that it fails to acknowledge the rights of each person, thus advocating injustice acts. People can suffer from immediate consequences of an action fulfilled by being “utilitarian”. Utilitarianism ignores the importance of moral obligation. It is still our duty to decide upon a wrong or right act and not take in consideration the amount of good or evil it produces. Lastly, moral dilemmas only happen because either quality or quantity of “good” or “pleasure” is in doubt. A person deciding whether to do a moral act has to take in consideration the maximization of happiness and pleasure to the
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and influential moral theories. There are two different meanings to two words but at times, they can be the same perspective. Utilitarianism is different from ethical theories it makes the rightness and wrongness of an act dependent to a person. The right thing can be done from a bad motivation. There are consequences including good or bad by the act. It is between an action and their happiness or unhappy outcomes depending on the circumstances. There is no moral principle only itself of utilitarianism. It balances the individuality and community of happiness. The purpose of the morality is by making life better and increasing that amount of good deed. “Another aspect of utilitarianism is the belief that
The Natural Law stated that humans have a moral knowledge/reason that makes us able to decide what’s right. This has caused various debates on whether people did the right because it was the right thing to do or whether they did it because that’s