1. Introduction
(Beginning unfinished) In this paper, I will introduce two arguments against Classical Utilitarianism and explain why they are compelling and tenable objections. I will then anticipate how a non-utilitarian Consequentialist might try to avoid these problems. In the last section, I will use the example of poverty relief to explain why Kantian Ethics immunes from the harsh criticisms faced by Utilitarian.
2. Two Objections to Classical Utilitarianism
Classical Utilitarianism is the doctrine that an act is morally right if and only if it maximizes overall (actual or expected) utility, and each person’s utility is counted impartially in the calculation. The last part of this definition implies that people are morally bound to be absolutely impartial in all their actions, and such implication is problematic.
(1) The Charge that Classical Utilitarianism is Too-Demanding
One popular objection to Classical Utilitarianism is that it is too demanding. Suppose person A has two choices to spend her weekend: she can either watch movies at home, or work at an NGO to save vulnerable people from suffering. According to Classical Utilitarianism, this person is morally obligated, not simply encouraged, to take the latter choice and to work as many hours as she can, because the overall reduction in pain of those suffering far exceeds the utility gained by this person from watching movies. Similarly, person B is morally required to resign from his own job if his doing so results in someone else’s greater amount of happiness gained from having the job. In these contexts, Classical Utilitarianism is too demanding in that it demands more of people than they have sufficient reasons to give. In other words, the doctrine demands people to...
... middle of paper ...
... not condemn such action. Kant would conclude that behaviors such as buying a movie ticket are unintentional actions that are neutral in moral status. After all, unintentional action is associated with neither good nor bad intentions, and is neither praiseworthy nor condemnable.
Kantian approach to poverty problem is also less demanding in terms of scale. There are millions of poor people living in hundreds of different countries, and Utilitarianism requires us to continue offer our help until every single of them no longer suffers from poverty. Kantian ethics is not that demanding. As long as one has a good will and incorporates that will into his action, no matter how much contributions he ends up making, he has done something morally good.
Works Cited
Mill, John Stuart. "What Utilitarianism Is." Utilitarianism. Raleigh, N.C.: Alex Catalogue, 199. 17. Print.
When applying utilitarianism, one must choose the action that produces the most amount of good to society, which in this case, Mill would not be in favor of the app Haystack. By discontinuing this app, the urban community as a whole would benefit since there are inequalities among the socioeconomic status’ of the people living in the densely populated cities. While some drivers are willing to pay for a spot each day, such as the upper or upper-middle class, others such as the lower or lower-middle classes might not be able to. Utilitarianism is concerned about the happiness of everyone. In regards to the concept of paying for parking spots, the poor and even the lower-middle will not be happy spending money each day for something that is traditionally
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.
I have been given the opportunity to take an ethical controversy and explore how six different ethic theories would apply to the situation. The ethical dilemma is such, “Investment brokers sometimes have a few clients who live hundreds of miles from their offices. For example, a Wall Street broker may provide investment counseling for his hometown relatives in upstate New York. By arranging to see them during his vacation visits home, he can claim his plane fare or car rental fees and perhaps even many of his meals as business expenses. In other words, he can deduct them on his tax return or, if he is employed by a company, claim them on his expense account”. In this essay, I will discuss Utilitarianism, Kantian Ethics, Natural Law Theory,
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
As human beings, we often have desires that are not always consistent with yielding the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism would argue that putting one’s own desires first and pursuing one’s own interests is wrong and immoral behavior. While some moral theories acknowledge that pursuing one’s own interests can be morally optional, in Utilitarianism, it is always forbidden (Moral Theory, p. 135). This makes the theory overly demanding because one is constantly forced to consider others. Utilitarians can respond to this objection by challenging the claim that pursuing one’s own desires cannot ever be consistent with the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Certainly there can be times when pursuing one’s own desires is also consistent with producing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarians might also point out that moral theories are meant to be demanding because they are teaching individuals how to act morally and acting morally is not always the desirable course of
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same utilitarian principle of maximising good, rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism provide two very different accounts on how the maximising of good should be approached. This essay will compare these two approaches and try to ascertain whether rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are
People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do.
...nces. Kantianism focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.
Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible
On the contrary, Kantian ethics value every individual rather than the majority. This theory holds that every human has rights and an action is wrong if it violates them. Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative states “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (O’Neill 400) This states that you can not use people in a way that they would not consent to. Kantian ethics also state that
Kant believed that morality has to be something free and freely controlled by the person taking the moral action excluding consequences because consequences are not controllable. Morality is freely chosen and legislated universal law that any rational being could construct and all rational beings who want to be moral do
Utilitarianism is defined to be “the view that right actions are those that result in the most beneficial balance of good over bad consequences for everyone involved” (Vaughn 64). In other words, for a utilitarian,