In the textbook, Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, utilitarianism is defined as “The ethical doctrine that an action is right if, and only if, it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” (Miller and Jensen 376). There are two distinguishable positions within utilitarianism: rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seeks to find which rule should be applied to a situation to bring about the greatest happiness to the most people, whereas act-utilitarianism seeks to find which action should be applied to bring about the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. In this paper I will argue that rule-utilitarianism is the more plausible of the two positions because society cannot function without set rules of conduct.
In his article, Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism, J.J.C. Smart renames act-utilitarianism as extreme utilitarianism, and he describes it like this: “According to this doctrine we test individual actions by their consequences, and general rules, like ' keep promises ', [sic] are mere rules of thumb which we use only to avoid the necessity of estimating the probable consequences of our actions at every step” (Smart 344). Smart is saying that extreme utilitarianism weighs actions by their possible consequences, so if breaking a rule results in greater happiness than keeping the rule does, the rule must be broken. Smart suggests that extreme utilitarianism is most closely aligned to the viewpoint of Jeremy Bentham, the founder of modern utilitarianism (Miller and Jensen 380). Bentham argued that the process of making a moral decision involved weighing all possible courses and then deciding on the course that resulted in the greatest amount of ...
... middle of paper ...
...more than any society could tolerate the doctrine as the exclusive basis for social action” (Kaplan 228). This statement is important because it takes away from Smart’s claims. Smart seeks to show that extreme utilitarianism is superior to restricted utilitarianism, and he wants to show that the latter is irrational. Smart tries to make that argument that extreme utilitarians consider the principle of utility as the most important principle. So therefore, in Smart’s argument, utility is utmost importance, and it is the deciding factor of which viewpoint is superior. The problem I see with Smart’s statement is that it still causes act-utilitarianism to remain inconsistent and impractical. How can we be sure that the weighed utility of every action is indeed the best course of action for the most amount of people instead of just the best course of action for ourselves?
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.
Author J.J.C. Smart writes about utilitarianism. He talks about two different types: one is extreme utilitarianism and the other is restricted utilitarianism. The first one is called Extreme utilitarianism which is an action that gives you the greatest amount of happiness, for the most amount of people it is the right action, no matter what the moral rule is. On the other hand, restricted utilitarianism on the other hand, seeks to find an action that creates the greatest amount of happiness for the most people. Restricted utilitarianism uses more of the moral rules than extreme utilitarianism.
The problem with Utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, it is that Utilitarianism is so fixated on generating the most happiness that the need to take into account the morality of the individual actions that constitute the result is essentially eradicated. In so doing, the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting the general welfare is brought about, which in turn, renders Utilitarianism an inadequate ethical
... 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?"
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian believes that a person must think things through before making a decision. The only exception to this idea applies with rules of thumb; decisions that need to be made spontaneously. The right act is the one that results in the most utility. Rule utilitarians believe that an act is only deemed appropriate if it fits in line with the outline of valid rules within a system of rules that target the most favorable outcome.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism has one basis, one must chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good; the greatest good for the greatest number. In any instance one may ask, which action will make the most people happy and how long? As a method
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.
Although both an act-utilitarian and a rule-utilitarian, both defend the utilitarianism main claim of us doing “what is optimific. [Meaning] we must maximize overall well-being,” (FE, 138). The main claim of each form is different.
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
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which determining the rightness or wrongness of action or decision is based on determining whether the greatest benefit or happiness will be provided in the highest or greatest number of population. This simply means that action or decision must be based on the highest amount or number of beneficiary (Martineau, 2006). However, this ethical theory has two major types. First is the “act utilitarianism” and second is the “rule utilitarianism.” Act utilitarianism specifically adh...
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
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.
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
In his context, utility is used to mean “whatever produces pleasure or happiness, and whatever prevents pain or suffering” (p. 34). His premise states that the course of action taken should be the one that “maximizes utility” (p. 34). On a superficial level, this seems to make intuitive sense, people want to do what makes them happy. However, there are some substantial flaws in his logic, namely the concept of individual rights and the concept of value (p. 40). This premise negates the importance of human rights, naturally gained rights, that can no one can take away. His logic dictates that if a majority of people will be happy, it would be okay to violate the rights of a single being. His skewed viewing of the world negates the concept of
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,