In philosophy, utilitarianism argues that a pleasure state of being is preferred over a painful state of being. Utilitarianism also notes that all human utility must be taken into account when making moral judgments. Using this moral theory allows us to think that all moral rules and actions should be determined by their worth and future outcome. Though the idea of “the greatest good for the greatest number” may seem moral and correct, the flaw in utilitarianism is that it allows us to use immoral judgments and actions to reach the desired outcome. This becomes a problem for “moral” decision making because we can use immoral actions to get a future outcome that is not necessarily promised.
For example, this moral theory can permit us to kill one person to save a group of people if it produces a better outcome. As a relatively moral being, I would say that murder is unacceptable behavior because it is not justified in many situations. Another problem with this theory is that we can’t always agree on the meaning of a “good” or “happy” outcome. Utilitarianism says it is based on outcomes, but none of us are truly able to predict all the consequences of an act. If I killed one person to save a group of people, how can I be sure that everyone will live in the end? If everyone dies, then I will have killed one human life with the hopes that it would have created a better outcome. Utilitarianism allows us to make up these fantasies in our own heads about the future of our actions. As a society, we generally see ourselves as intelligent moral beings who don’t typically partake in negative actions. However, one person can think they are right in their actions and morals, but deem another person’s actions or morals unfit.
Act utilitarianis...
... middle of paper ...
...s. I believe that this moral theory makes the most sense and it is what most people rely on when making important decisions. Since the future is unpredictable, this theory allows us to use our own judgment regardless of duties or outcomes.
In our lives, people generally do as they want or believe is right, to produce what they think will create satisfaction and happiness. I think that each situation we face in live doesn’t have to be constricted to one moral theory. In order to make good decisions, I believe an intelligent being would weigh all possibilities in a given situation. These moral theories should be combined when dealing with problems. The issue with these moral theories separately, is that it confines us to only one way of thinking. We must consider outcomes, stick to our duties, and trust that our own virtues will allow us to make the best decisions.
What are the implications for moral theory? I think that Julia Annas’ computer manual model of decision making, is our own consciences and the sense of what is right or wrong. Consequently, we have the freedom to choose as to whether or not we comply with what our conscience tells us to do in situations/ as I mentioned earlier in regards to the trolley problem, some people might say ‘it is better to save five people, as it would spare five families the loss of loved ones, and it is one person instead.’, whilst others would say ‘it is better to save one person, as five people with healthy organs to donate is much better.’ Regardless of which one is the best answer, it can be paradoxical as to how a person looks at
Rossian Pluralism claims that there are multiple things that we have basic, intrinsic moral reason to do, which he names as the prima facie duties. These duties are not real, obligatory duties that one must follow under all circumstances, but are “conditional duties” (Ross 754) that one should decide to follow or reject upon reflection of their circumstances. This moral theory has faced criticisms, most strongly in the form of the problem of trade-offs. However, I will demonstrate that the problem of trade-offs is an issue that can be neglected as a valid objection to Rossian Pluralism because it is applicable to other theories as well and it is a factor that makes a moral theory more valuable than not.
Sally’s prescriptive moral theory combines two separate and unrelated principles to create an all-encompassing moral theory to be followed by moral agents at all times. The first is rooted in consequentialism and is as follows: 1. Moral agents should cause moral pain or suffering only when the pain or suffering is justified by a moral consideration that is more important than the pain or suffering caused. The second is an autonomous theory, where other’s autonomy must be respected, it is 2. Moral agents should respect the autonomy of moral agents. This requires always taking into account the rational goals of moral agents when making decisions that may affect them. The more important the goals are to the agents, the greater the importance of not obstructing them. Since Sally’s theory has two separate principles, she accounts for the possibility that they will overlap. To do so, she includes an option on how to resolve the conflicts. According to the theory, if the principles lead to conflicting actions, then moral agents should resolve the conflict on a case-by-case basis by deciding which principle should be followed given the proposed actions and circumstances.
... believe that if the intent of the agent's actions is to try to maximize the greater good or to create the greatest net utility possible, then it does not matter whether or not one is successful in carrying out his/her chosen act. Lastly, questions of morality and whether what one is doing in upholding the utilitarian concepts is "right" hold no ground. This is because utilitarianism clearly states that if the act in question maximizes the net utility, without causing harm or pain to all considered, the real moral question becomes, "Wouldn't you be morally wrong in not carrying out said act?"
Stocker highlights the constraints that motives impose on both ethical theory and the ethical life in order to show that only when justifications and motives are in harmony can people lead the good life. Stocker believes that mainstream ethical theories, like consequentialism and deontology, make it impossible for people to reconcile their reasons and motives because these theories demand that people perform acts for the sake of duty or for the good, as opposed to because they care about the people who are affected by their actions.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
Virtue theory and utilitarian theory are two of the principal ethical theories. Though each theory deserves the general respect they have gathered, both are under constant attack from objection and scrutiny.
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
Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human’s natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
... and also towards the wellness of all human being in general. There is not anyone watching over me or judging my moral code. However, I just feel responsible for my actions; a moral code should always be in my consciousness, and it tells me how to act in all situations. A thing to remember about these theories is that they are concerned with the greater good. Utilitarians do not care about a person personal life or whether a person actions happen to hurt some people. As long as the results of a person’s actions lead to more pleasure than pain, you are in the clear. For me, being a good person means doing good, and make good decisions. Human beings are not to be viewed as a means to an end but as ends in themselves. Utilitarianism believes that humans are to be treated with respect, but respect must take into account the everyday situations in which a person live.
In philosophy, there are many different views regarding what is thought to constitute ethical behavior. Among them are the cultural relativist, utilitarian, and Kantian. Given a situation where someone must choose to either kill one person out of thirty so that the others could live or let all thirty people die in order to maintain their moral duty, the distinctive philosophical views would lead to varying responses. They contribute opposing ideas on what the right decision is. Generally, these three ethical theories have the power to influence what happens next.
When reading about utilitarianism, it became evident that there are multiple ways to interpret this theory of ethics. However, the classical utilitarianism states that we ought to always to do whatever brings out the greatest amount of pleasure over pain for everyone affected by the action. On the surface, this seems to be a plausible theory, however,when looked at below the surface, there are possible consequences. Utilitarianism is potentially dangerous because the option that has the highest point total could be dangerous. For example, if I were living in Nazi Germany, there might be more benefits to assassinate and kill Hitler despite the fact that the rule of thumb usually says that killing is wrong. The second problem with utilitarianism
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
Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
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