Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which endorses that an action is morally acceptable if it has the right kind of outcome or consequence. The intent of an action or the reasoning behind it is disregarded in utilitarianism. Happiness is simply quantified in terms of the satisfaction of a majority, independent of the beliefs of the majority or their intentions. ... ... middle of paper ... ...ism and have given a detailed argument that holds the innocent bystander objection valid against any form of utilitarianism. Through detailed examples illustrated in this essay, the readers can get a clear understanding of how a utilitarian might react in sacrificial scenarios.
I will begin by looking at the first claim that states that the consequential nature of utilitarianism is inappropriate. According to this argument, actions are judged according to the resulting consequences on the individual who undertook the actions without considering who motivated the actions. I will argue that this claim is wrong. This is because if the actions are morally up right, they will also produce the best consequences compared to any other actions. In my opinion utilitarianism is effective in shaping the behavioral character of the society as maximization of the good actions as well as minimization of evil deeds is
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.
I see utilitarianism as a powerful and persuasive approach to ethics in philosophy. There are varieties of views discussed but utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally correct action is the action that produces the most good. In its simplest form it is maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. There are a few ways to think about this claim. One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism.
To contest, I would start by reminding of the central values of utilitarianism, mainly on the idea of the greatest happiness principle and of the greatest overall happiness. Morally, the correct decision is the one that brings about the most happiness. And while thinking small I could see how one could assume that that might only mean the happiness of those directly involved, in actuality it tells us that it refers to all people equally and does not put any extra emphasis on people that are significant to the person, or even the person themselves. Therefore, if something was of some benefit to you and it could potentially be of some benefit
The fundamental objective of Hedonistic Utilitarianism would be to maximize happiness while minimizing pain (Sober 416). Supported by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, the theory of Utilitarianism has been criticized, reformed, and researched in order to view the different situations in which this theory may produce positive or negative outcomes. Although this moral theory, was established with positive intentions there have been ethical conflictions created by this theory. Such as the understanding that the hedonistic utilitarian moral theory maintains a very subjective motivation, destroys autonomy, and creates a false sense of self. One of those situational theories is the experience machine hypothesis.
Then I will discuss the requirements of ethical egoism and the difference between ethical egoism general principle of self-interest and the notion of “whatever one wants.” I will then briefly suggest that Ethical Egoism is plausible but show the theory cannot be plausible in the same argument. Furthermore I will discuss the argument against ethical egoism that proves the theory to be arbitrary from the general principle concerning the treatment of others. Lastly I discuss why this arbitrary concept poses a problem for moral theory and reasons in ethics. Ethical Egoism states that we should pursue our best self-interests of the long run. Morally right actions are those, which benefits our-self.
In Utilitarianism For and Against by Bernard Williams, Williams has an argument that is based on the value of integrity. Integrity is defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles or moral uprightness. In Williams argument he believes in certain circumstances utilitarianism requires agents to abandon their personal projects and commitments. This lead Williams to claim that utilitarianism is an attack on an agent’s integrity. In my essay I will explain Williams’s argument on utilitarianism and how he is lead to believe it is an attack on an agent’s integrity.
Cover page Introduction The word Contrast means comparing in order to show unlikeness or differences. Though this paper we will see the differences between the utilitarian theory and the virtue theory. According to Boylan (2009), “ethics is the science concerning the right and wrong of human behavior.” It is a method that allows us to organize our values and go after them. It helps us answer questions like: do I seek my own happiness, or do I sacrifice myself for a greater cause. Virtue ethics focuses on how to be; studies what makes the character traits of people.
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.