Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism ethics essay
Utilitarianism ethics
Utilitarianism ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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. In Williams's first example he discusses the situation of a man. George is having a difficult time finding a job after completing his Ph.D. in chemistry. He is offered a job to work on chemical and biological warfare. Although the job would be beneficial for him professionally, he is strongly against this type of research. In addition, George's low level of commitment to the project would slow the progress of the research, providing for less advancement in chemical and biological warfare. The utilitarian reply to this would be that George should accept his j... ... middle of paper ... ...set. This is due to the ideas behind consequentialism and the utilitarian ideals of happiness. Bernard Williams discusses multiple fine points against utilitarianism. His objections are clear and concise, but he fails to keep confidence in them. For all of the problems he sees in utilitarianism, he is not completely opposing it by any means. Williams enjoys the simple mindedness in making a utilitarian decision. By this he does not imply intellectual simplicity. Rather, utilitarians mix perfectly the technical complexity of processes of decision-making with the simple-mindedness of it all. This leads to Williams's final point against utilitarianism. Although utilitarianism can be seen as a great combination of complexity and simplicity, the complexity of serious issues (i.e. politics) is undermined and made sterile by the simplicity of utilitarian thoughts.
In conclusion Williams’s argument about Utilitarianism can be looked at in many different angles. Williams believes utilitarianism obstructs humans from the basic human moral of integrity. The word integrity means that you are living your life in way that you act in accordance with your commitments and moral code. If a system like utilitarianism tells you that integrity is not important and denies what is important to an individual has a serious problem in the eyes of Bernard Williams.
First the definition of utilitarianism is, “An act is morally right if and only if it does more to improve overall happiness than any available alternative” (Farley). Overall happiness can also be used interchangeably by the words, happiness, pleasure or well-being. There are two types of utilitarians, the first is an act utilitarian, in which they seek actions that produce the greatest good. Act utilitarianism is more dependent on the results of a particular action and not the expectations. The main argument for act utilitarianism is, “What is the particular outcome we expect X to have?” (Farley). Whereas rule utilitarianism is more swayed towards the consequences that will come from this particular action as adopted as a social rule (Farley). Adopted by social rule meaning, we as a society what rules to enforce and the consequences. There is no rule that society has to follow all the time.
Utilitarianism, the main consequentialist theory, postulates that “utility” is the main goal, understanding “utility” as happiness. An action is considered ethically right if it increases someone´s utility and vice versa. This approach is also called “act utilitarianism”. If rules are considered instead of single acts, then the approach is called “rule utilitarianism”. Act utilitarianism has many disadvantages due to its narrow approach, limited to the scope of one act, being difficult to predict the consequences.
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.
Consequentialism is ordinarily distinct from deontology, as deontology offers rightness or wrongness of an act, rather than the outcome of the action. In this essay we are going to explore the differences of consequentialism and deontology and apply them to the quandary that Bernard Williams and J.J.C Smart put forward in their original analogy of “Jim and the Indians” in their book , Utilitarianism: for and against (J.J.C Smart & Bernard Williams, 1973, p.78-79.).
A number of classic criticisms still surround utilitarianism today, the first one concerning the calculating or quantifying of happiness, or pleasure as termed by Mill. Opponents of utilitarianism argue that the differences between people as individuals and number of uncontrollable variables in a given moral situation do not allow us to calculate the amount of happiness or pleasure that could be attained by a particular course of action. Additionally, the ability to discern consequences and the time needed to discern these consequences make the utilitarian approach to happiness impractical. In rebuttal, Mill argues that the aforementioned problems are present in any ethical theory. Only roughly estimating the consequences in a situation is necessary, according to Mill. Also, he makes claim that we do calculate the consequences of the various outcomes possible in a particular moral dilemma, whether or not we are cognoscente of doing so. In fact, in some situations, no time is in fact needed in order to act in accordance with traditional moral principles (such as love thy neighbor as thyself, do not steal/lie/murder/cheat, etc.).
The democracy of the United States today is deeply intertwined with a utilitarian mindset. The ideals formed by the many thinkers/writers of the 18h-19th century can still be seen as prevalent in today’s society. The enlightened philosophes of the 17th-18th century had paved the way for a new form of political system. The idea of utilitarianism was preached by a number of prestigious writers, including John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and the United States own John Adams. This school of thought made its way to the United States early in the nation’s history and is deeply rooted within the origins of our great country.
Examining the case with the Utilitarian mindset, we consider the overall positivity of the action vs the positivity of the alternative. In this case, what is the measure
As mentioned earlier, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner by which they formulate happiness and assess the morality associated with such actions. According to Smart, “act utilitarianism makes the morality of actions depend entirely on their results, requiring us always to do that action, among all available to us at the time, which will yield the greatest overall happiness” (Shafer Landau, pg. 92). More simply, if we choose the par...
Holmes offers three criticisms of utilitarianism. How is one going to achieve it so that it does benefit the highest number of people? How do you decide how to distribute the benefits in the best possible way? I agree that it would be very hard to decide the best way to distribute the benefits equally. How would a person decide if you do it over time or all at once? Utilitarianism sounds like a good way to live, as there are times it is necessary to safe the individuals t...
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Utilitarianism is a reality, not just a theory like many other philosophies; it is practiced every day, for instance the vote system. This ongoing practice of utilitarianism in society has show that it is flawed. Just because the masses vote for something, doesn’t make it right. The masses can be fooled, as in Nazi Germany for example, thousands of people were behind Hitler even though his actions were undeniably evil. Utilitarianism is a logical system, but it requires some sort of basic, firm rules to prevent such gross injustices, violations of human rights, and just obviously wrong thing ever being allowed. This could be the ‘harm principle’ which Mill devised.
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...
In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various courses of action that we could take, then determine any foreseeable benefits and harms to all affected by the ramifications of our decision. In fact, some of the early pioneers of utilitarianism, such as Bentham and Mill, campaigned for equality in terms of women's suffrage, decriminalization of homosexuality, and abolition of slavery (Boralevi, 1984). Utilitarianism seems to support democracy as one could interpret governments working to promote the public interest and welfare of citizens as striving for liberty for the greatest amount of people. While utilitarianism at its heart is a theory that calls for progressive social change through peaceful political processes, there are some difficulties in relying on it as the sole method for moral decision-making. In this essay I will assess the effectiveness of utilitarianism as a philosophy of government by examining the arguments against it.
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