Social interaction is extremely important to the human experience. One of the pillars of social interaction is respect. We are all well aware that respect is necessary for society to function, yet it is extremely difficult to determine exactly why we need it and what it requires. The definition of respect can be complex and difficult to determine. A widely held definition of respect is treating others as you would treat yourself, which creates a preferable societal atmosphere of mutual understanding and equality. Three ethical theories, Utilitarianism, Natural Law Theory, and Kantian Ethics, all aim to define respect and look at it in different ways. Through an analysis of Utilitarianism, Natural Law Theory, and Kantian Ethics, I believe …show more content…
Utilitarianism aims to establish the definition of respect by looking at our decisions and the level of happiness they create as well as their impact to society as a whole. According to Jeremy Bentham, a primary developer of Utilitarianism, decisions made by humans are governed by two forces: pain and pleasure (Bentham 1). This principle can be applied to two different entities; that of the individual and that of the community an individual is a member of (Bentham 1). John Stuart Mill, another developer of Utilitarianism, goes further in depth. According to Mill, decisions and actions are considered right in that they promote happiness and wrong if they cause pain (Mill 43). Based on the statements made by Bentham and Mill, it can be deduced that a Utilitarian would consider society’s view of respect as important because it provides pleasure to the most amount of people. In a utilitarian world, choosing to be respectful is always the ethical decision because it will nearly always make others avoid pain. This intense focus on society is where the problem exists with using Utilitarianism as an ethical theory to define respect and its importance to …show more content…
According to C. E. Harris, a proponent of Natural Law, Natural Law is made up of different values held by all humans (Harris 2). These values are split into biological values, which are values common to other animals, and “characteristically human values, which are values unique to the human experience (Harris 2). One of these “characteristically human values”, sociability attempts to establish the definition of respect and why it’s important to society. According to Harris, sociability is the natural human tendency to create bonds, such as friendship or love, with other humans (Harris 2). This natural desire to create bonds with others, leads to the creation of factions and governments (Harris 2). Under Natural Law, respect can be defined as treating people fairly in order to establish bonds with other humans, and is established as important because all humans crave bonds with other humans. However, the problem with using Natural Law Theory as an ethical basis as to why we should respect each other is it fails to provide a reason for factions to be respectful towards other factions. For example, under Natural Law Theory, there would be no need for factions to be respectful to each other. Each individual member of a faction has met their natural desire to form bonds with humans in their own faction. Once this is met, an individual’s duty towards respect
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
The case that was presented, a doctor who took the organs without permission from a dying patient in order to save three people, is a very intriguing case. It really questions a person’s morals. Was the doctor right in taking the dying patients organs in order to save three people, which would be using the Utilitarianism view, or is the Kantian Deontology view right? I will argue that the Kantian Deontology view on morals is much better in this case.
Arguably England’s most influential philosopher of the 19th century was none other than John Stuart Mill, a main proponent to utilitarianism — an ethical theory placing emphasis on the consequences of our actions. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to provide a scientific approach to decision making, while simultaneously seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. As a young woman pondering the right course of action for my future, Mill’s contributions to utilitarianism are both practical and intriguing to someone in my situation.
Deontological ethical theory focuses on duty. It is viewed that humans have a duty in doing what is ethically right in any given situation. However, the categorical imperative does not have the same ideas it does not consist of duties to us. As Kant indicates in the idea of the Kingdom of Ends that our duty lies in treating all human beings as ends in and of them instead of as a means to an end it is perceived as being an extension of us. It is based on the desires of a person on how they want to be treated and will succeed as long as the universal good is applied as well. In other words, our actions and behaviors applied in our lives, we can see others imitating. For instance, can we see a world where everyone lied willingly? It does not make sense it would defeat the purpose of being able to identify the truth there would be no meaning. The ethical duty is to be truthful.
From walking out of your local grocery store back to your car, after buying as much food as your last paycheck can purchase, a beggar stops you. They are wearing the most ragged clothes you have ever seen and you doubt they provide any sort of warmth in the harsh February weather in New England. They ask, “Do you have any spare change?” knowing that you just bought some items and potentially paid with cash and received coins in return or just happen to have literal spare change. You fumble with your words attempting to come up with a reasonable response; how could you even respond to them? On one hand, a Kantian would respond with the truth, “Of course!”, while a Utilitarian would respond with a quick, “Nope, sorry,”.
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those people who reject this moral theory will say utilitarianism does not grant human life enough value compared to that of a pig. Mill gives an effective response and states that humans can and are the only ones that experiences higher pleasures and qualities of life, which make a human's life better than a pig's life.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
Introduction One of the main reasons why human rights have been put in place is to protect the public life and public space of every individual being. One fundamental characteristic of human rights is that they are equal rights; they are aimed at providing protection to every person in an equal way. These rights have been entrenched through laws that are passed by states and international conventions. Human rights laws have evolved over time, and have been shaped by several factors, including philosophical theories in the past. This paper looks at the theories of two philosophers, Emmanuel Kant and John Stuart Mills, and how their teachings can be used to explain the sources of human rights.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
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.
Both Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, had thoughts of the Principle of Utility and what it should be like. Bentham believes that the Principle of Utility depends on pain and pleasure and Mill believes that the Principle of Utility depends on higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Pain meaning evil and pleasure meaning good or greater benefits and higher pleasures meaning that action was good which would lead to a higher level of happiness and lower pleasures meaning bad which would lead to a decreasing level of happiness. Therefore, a normative ethical theory that has come through from this and it is Utilitarianism. The definition of Utilitarianism is a course of action that maximizes the total
As human beings, the author says we are like other creatures on earth that are governed by laws of gravity, or certain biological laws that govern things on this earth; we have no choice but to obey. There is, though, one law that we can choose to obey or not. It is a law that we call the law of human decent behavior. It doesn't matter what part of the world we live in, Dr. Lewis says, people differ very little when it comes to right and wrong as related to the law of human decent behavior. We do not always take it into consideration when we should be doing it to other people; nonetheless, we recognize indecent behavior when we are expecting it and do not receive it. There are two things, the author points out, that all human beings all over the earth have in common: (1) this idea that they are to behave in a certain way, and they cannot really get rid of it; and (2) they do not in fact behave in that way — they know the law of nature and they break it.