Taking One to Spare the Others
The theory of Utilitarianism assists in determining which decision one should arrive at to uphold morality. By utilizing the greatest happiness principle which argues is the greatest principle of morality, Utilitarianism uses the logical approach towards determining which action promotes the greatest sense of happiness and therefore is the most moral thing to do. Whatever action will result in the greatest amount of happiness should be pursued whereas any action which would result in the privation of happiness must be avoided to maintain morality. Unlike Kant’s deontology theory which is concerned primarily with the intentions of the actor, Utilitarianism is concerned about consequences of the actions of an actor.
…show more content…
Differences in attitudes and societal beliefs in communities and societies around the world pose a challenge that Kant’s theory cannot overcome. Through having a vaguer process of determining the morality of an action, an actor can adapt it to suit the local rhetoric and belief system of the society in which the scenario arises. For instance, some societies largely condemn sex before marriage, and may even punish one who engages in such conduct. In the view of various societies, particularly societies with an over all strong reliance of religions which place great emphasis on marriage, would view premarital sex as immoral and, as a result, counter to all values of the given society. However, depending on one’s religious and moral views, premarital sex in Canada is widely accepted as a choice one is free to engage …show more content…
How can a theory on morality address everything as absolute when differences persist not only between differing cultures but even within cultures themselves, often in the form of values within sub-cultures? To further supplement the argument, homosexuality, divorce, consumption of alcohol are additional examples of concepts which cannot be treated as absolutes when speaking of morality as views, and attitudes, of such concepts vary widely throughout society. These three additional concepts, while over all embraced by a majority of Canadians in contemporary Canada, are still taboo and, as a result, openly condemned and punished in other countries. It is ironic that Kant argues something is moral if it can be made universal as that eliminates countless things which we, as Canadians, overwhelmingly tolerate, or even embrace. According to the village and sacrifice example, Karl’s framework would argue you do nothing, as acting to such an offer to save others in return for choosing of a villager to murder, one is implying their conscience is superior to others, and therefore; is a selfish thing to do. However, Karl is found to be doing the exact same thing by arguing that doing nothing is the right thing to do. Karl is implying that by doing nothing to spare your conscience of any
Utilitarianism says that the right action is the one that brings about the most overall happiness. No other moral rule has universal validity. According to Rachels, Utilitarianism is known as “we should always do whatever will produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness for everyone who will be affected by our action” (Rachels). Utilitarianism has three main principles. Consequentialism says that the actions are to be judged right or wrong solely by virtue of their consequences. Hedonism states that in assessing consequences, the only thing that matters are the amount of happiness/unhappiness that is caused. The Equality Principle states that each person’s happiness counts the same. The two most important objections to utilitarianism are Consequentialism and the Equality Principle. The replies to Consequentialism and the Equality Principle, shows that Utilitarianism is not a plausible moral theory, therefore, Utilitarianism should be rejected.
“[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.”
Normative ethics have received much praise and criticism from well-respected philosophers for many years. Structured by Immanuel Kant, arguably one of the greatest minds in history, Kantian ethics have changed the way people look at what truly makes an action “right.” Kant believed that developing a moral system that was consistent and based entirely on reason was achievable. He urged ethics that are knowable without reference to sense experience, or as he calls “a priori” claims, because they are universal and binding. Kant argued that it is impossible to ground ethics on religion. Instead, he turned to a vague sense of natural law and states that rules exist to rational beings, whether on this universe or any other, simply because they are rational beings.
To begin, the first theory to be discussed is cultural relativism and its relationship with the minimum conception of morality. In order to do so, it is important to define both arguments; Cultural Relativism is the principle that dictates beliefs, faiths, customs and traditions within one society may be justified, but to other societies looking in, it may not. Examples include opposing religions within separate regions across the globe such as Christianity and Hinduism. The Minimum Conception of Morality follows a ut...
Kant believes that justifying an act based on its consequence is too subjective; it makes morality too individualistic and opens the door for moral inequality. As human beings, we all posses the faculty of reason, Kant says that for an act to be considered moral it must be “reasonable”, but in this case reason does not mean logic, it means the human ability to understand a categorical concept of morality. Kant adds that this will lead us to a universal code, which is the “universal moral principle” that we as humans must all abide too. Meaning, we must act in a way that others should act, we as individuals cannot have our own moral law; it has to apply to everyone. He also goes into depth about Autonomy vs. Heteronomy, which is about making a choice as a ends and not a means. Autonomy means making a choice as an end in and of itself and not a mean, this is when one differentiates between the act and the consequence. Heteronomy means acting according to an external determination and this type of reasoning for an action makes it immoral. Kant does not care about the consequence, the only thing that matters and the only way an act can be rendered moral is the persons motive of duty to a universal rational principle when the specific act is being perused. Kant also emphasizes that as humans we must value human dignity, we must treat other as an end and not as a
This principle of Utilitarianism strives to answer the question, regarding to any moral standard, is “What are the motives to follow such moral standards?”. An individual is deemed moral when their actions advocate the benefit of the public, according to the greatest happiness principle. Mills believed that the foundation of morals was in fact utility and defined it as ‘happiness with the absence of pain’. The principle helps us define the controversial phrases right, wrong, happiness and unhappiness in the most basic of terms. A choice or action is ‘right’ when it promotes happiness and considered ‘wrong’ if it encourages the opposite of happiness. While happiness is defined as state when there is pleasure present, but the absence of pain and unhappiness is quite the contrary it is pain with lack of pleasure being present, also knowing as suffering. According to Mills the central issue with ethical theory is the question of the supreme good or ultimate end and this argument is designed to express that the maximum happiness is the ultimate moral good. Now that it is understood the principle of the greatest good helps answers a question of moral
Utilitarianism is consequentialist ethical system that focuses on the results of actions, rather than the actions themselves. Utilitarian ethics, attributed to Jeremy Bentham, also argue that humans are naturally driven to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Therefore, in utilitarian ethics, just actions are those that maximize happiness, utility, and minimize unhappiness. Utilitarian ethics also argue that happiness must be maximized for the greatest number of people, rather than focusing on the individual pursuit of pleasure. Utilitarianisms strengths lie in its societal applications, allowing decision making bodies that benefit large groups, rather than looking purely individualistically. It also offers a stronger justification if one accepts the base principle that happiness is universally better than unhappiness. One of the main difficulties in applying utilitarian ethics is the challenge of quantifying happiness. It is impossible to empirically measure happiness. Utilitarianism also opens itself to hypotheticals that yield unpleasant results. Under pure utilitarianism, if it would increase the safety, and therefore happiness, of a society to torture or kill innocents suspected of a crime, it would follow that such action was ethically just. Subsequent utilitarians have offered more nuanced versions of the hedonic calculus and ideas of rule utilitarianism that look at overall moral rules
Utilitarianism is a theory which states that the purpose of morality is to achieve maximal goodness in a society. It is consequentialist rather than deontological in that the moral value of ethical decisions are to be judged in terms of their effects, rather than the intrinsic properties of the acts themselves. Those effects are deemed good which generate the most pleasure or happiness, or which minimize overall pain. There are two classical types of utilitarianism which will be under our consideration: act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Two objections to utilitarianism will be examined, as well as Louis Pojman’s responses to those objections in Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. It will be shown that Pojman presents an adequate defense of utilitarianism, and that utilitarianism succeeds as a worthwhile moral theory.
Most individuals identify morality as a set of rules that are clearly right or wrong. On the other hand, philosophers like Immanuel Kant and Jean-Paul Sartre attempt to discover the ways in which these rules can be legitimized. Kant’s moral system is grounded in rationality, in how any rational being would acknowledge objective, universal moral laws. Kant theorizes that humans are moral beings that are rational and have free will. Using our rationality, we as human beings are able to make the distinction between the moral and immoral by considering where the action falls in the “categorical imperative” (Kant 198). Kant’s idea of this categorical imperative can be summed up in his statement, “Act only on that maxim whereby at the same time you
Utilitarianism is a theory based on the greatest happiness principle as action are right if more people are happy from a decisions which makes few people unhappy and pain as Utilitarianism also deals with morally right and socially correct. The happiness is all about pleasure and the absence of pain. Utility is found in every thing, which contributes to the happiness of all rational being. And utilitarianism express a desire of freedom as everyone want to be free, happy and without pain.
The theory of utilitarianism has core principles which define its structure. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which states that an act is judged to be moral, based on its consequences, rather than its motives. It is based on the principle "the greatest good for the greatest number". Therefore, an act is moral if it results in the greater happiness of the majority. According to Utilitarianism, written by J. Mill “The doctrine that the basis of morals is utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (2008, p.5). This quote correlates with the basic principles of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism
As a cultural relativist, one would believe that morality is culturally bound. This is a subjective idea that believes “different societies have different moral codes” (Rachels,
In his book, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant theorizes an absolute and universal guide based on the principle of reason to determine what humans morally ought to do— the categorical imperative. The categorical imperatives consists of different formulations, which simply act as different ways of defining it. Within his formulations, Kant stresses the importance of universalism, equality, and
Moral relativism is a widespread theory that can be used to explain the differences among cultures and their ethics and morals. Ruth Benedict describes relative morality as a concept based specifically on the ethics of a culture and how they are related to those of other cultures. He argues that many cultures are so contrasting when it comes to specific areas of culture and lifestyle that they cannot be unified under one universal moral code that governs all of humanity. Conversely however, James Rachels, author of Elements of Moral Philosophy, does not subscribe to the theory of moral relativism. Instead, he believes that all cultures have some values in common - that there is less disagreement among cultures than moral relativists like Benedict make out. Rachels and Benedict are quoted in The Moral Life, using an array of examples to support their assertions. In my essay I aim to argue that moral relativism does in fact exist, but not to the extent that Benedict holds, or to the extent that Rachels has argued its non-existence.
Utilitarianism is a consequence-based theory [1] that promotes the happiness of peo-ple and that is morally correct to make decisions based on it. By that, an individual act and policy