This concept is well out of the scope of this paper, but it is important to understand that complete verification is impossible, and endlessly inefficient, so we must be satisfied with a certain amount of verification. This wildly subjective statement poses a great problem. What is a good amount of verification? There is no answer to this question, because in fact, it differs for every situation, and even within a single situation, two people may apply different levels of verification.
Since “all action is for the sake of some end”, actions and their consequences are inseparable. The doctrine holds that the consequences of actions outweigh in significance the nature of the actions. Therefore, no action is considered wrong according to Utilitarianism as long as it maximizes happiness, even if the action is morally wrong in its nature. The doctrine appears to encourage actions that contradict common sense morality, the body of moral rules accepted by society. This impression raises an objection to Utilitarianism saying it promotes unjust, evil actions.
Mills responds to this objection by explaining how secondary moral reasoning and the fundamental principle of morality are taken into account when deciding what promotes the most overall happiness. After explaining his argument, I believe Mill succeeds in responding to the objection, he explains why it shouldn’t be a problem when weighing the best possible outcome by using the secondary moral rule as the first principle. According to Mill, there are several elements to the principle of utility. First, it allows people to choose the action that promotes the most happiness. As stated, Mill believes that an action is right if it promotes happiness and an action is wrong if it promotes pain.
Utilitarianism is based on the right being that which has a good or pleasant outcome, and immoral being an action with a bad outcome. Utilitarianism also maintains that we should act to maximize the happiness of everyone. Some philosophers see this principle as a strict requirement Jeremy Bentham, a philosopher came up with principles to utility. He was the first to propel the idea that an action should be judged by the amount of pleasure or pain it caused. His principle explained that a good action is on that brought pleasure while one that caused pain was evil.
In his book he states, “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. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure” (Mill). Although this passage is pretty straightforward I will explain it in simpler terms in order to better understand it. Basically, what Mill is proposing is that according to a Utilitarian, actions are unjustifiably right if they produce happiness, or pleasure, and have an absence of pain. This is a key point into looking at the connection of utilitarianism and the liberty principle.
Only when one has good reason to believe one is in a situation. Smart draws the distinction between the ‘right’ and the ‘rational’ act by using the term rational as a term of commendation for that action which is, on the evidence available to the agent to produce the best results. He uses the word right as a term of commendation for the action which does in fact produce the best results. So Smart says that what is rational is to try to perform the right action, to try to produce the best results. A good rule of act-utilitarianism is one that are designed to maximize... ... middle of paper ... ...e’s choice as being right if he chooses not to take on the job.
A deontologist is an individual who focuses the righteousness of an action being something that is right or doing something wrong. Deontology focuses mainly on the actions themselves, not the outcome, emotional aspect, nor the consequences of the action. Demonology is also known as duty-based ethics, and utilitarianism is also know us utility-based ethics. The two topics are similar but they also have a difference separate the two. While utility-based ethics emphasizes on the end result, and what the right decision is based on making a person happy in the end.
There are two versions of utilitarianism, act and rule utilitarianism. Although they oppose each other, they are consistent with the utilitarian principle that was just explained. Act utilitarianism holds that what is believed to be morally right or wrong is based on consequence. When deciding which action results in the most good, it is dependent on whomever or whatever will benefit the most from it. Then, rule utilitarianism is dependent on moral rules.
History provides information of the past and how small events can lead to large scale ones but if the information given is falsified or wrong it may cause inaccuracies in knowledge. Natural science shows us how knowledge must be tested before being discarded an... ... middle of paper ... ...ethod we learn to further knowledge to increase our understanding. Those in power may try to do this for beneficial or even unethical needs but knowledge cannot easily be fully erased from history, traces will always remain and it is our job to find it. Some knowledge can withstand the test of time due to this and thus are always changing little by little in order to obtain a better or a more complete truth. Therefore in conclusion “That which is accepted as knowledge today is sometimes discarded tomorrow” is an accurate statement as shown from the areas of knowledge history and natural sciences.
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.