As defined, “If utility is the ultimate source of moral obligations, utility may be invoked to decide between them when their demands are incompatible, though the application of the standard may be difficult, it is better than none at all” (Utilitarianism, 25). By this, in most ordinary circumstances, common moral rules should be able to distinguish what promotes the most happiness without needing the principle of utility. And only when the secondary rule conflicts, you should use the principle of utility.
It is a primary condition of analytical acceptance or rejection. John Stuart mill believes that there is a wide variety of misconception to the formed meaning of The Utilitarianism Theory. He wants readers to view and make out what it’s not, and have those that undermine the theory to the remove the reasonable objections with the wrong interpretations of its meaning. A majority of philosophers have criticized utilitarianism as “unjust,” because it has no way of dividing society equally with goods being distributed. Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” In his words he defines happiness as a state of pleasure without pain.
(516) I have considered Mill’s ethical theory of Utilitarianism, specifically Rule Utilitarianism. After considering the objections of Negative Responsibility and conflicting rules, I have explained that it is plausible that an individual has a moral responsibility to only really focus on their own happiness and the happiness of those around them. I have also explained that it is fairly trivial to solve the issue of conflicting rules by pondering modifications of rules or even new ones. I’ve explained Mill’s response to the “no time” objection, given his views on lying. I’ve given the definitions of happiness, unhappiness, qualities of pleasure and the role of competent judges in that, and the Greatest Happiness Principle.
This shall be done by first examining Hume’s seminal work ‘Of the standard of taste’ (Hume, SOT). Firstly Hume’s idea of ‘agreeableness’ of a work art shall be addressed, and how the idea of the test of time can result in unanimity of in aesthetic judgement as evidence that there can be an objective standard for aesthetic judgement. This shall be confirmed by examining Hume’s non-cognitivist account of aesthetic judgement proposing that no properties of objects can make them viable candidates for aesthetic evaluation, only the immediate and spontaneous reactions that they can evoke from us can. After this has been established it will then be shown that due to the shared nature of the human species, such aesthetic sentiments can display reasonable uniformity. Although it will have already been established that a uniformity of taste exists, it will be discussed how aesthetic sentiments can be improved by a sound understanding of what is being appreciated, as it is possible for some aesthetic judgments to be better than others, through aesthetic judgment of individuals that Hume regards as being good critics, who have well-tuned aesthetic sensibilit... ... middle of paper ... ... (1963) The abbreviations and texts cited above are as follows: [T] A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd ed.
Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment aims to analyze the notion of a judgment of beauty or a judgment of taste. There is a basic dichotomy between two opposed sets of features that Kant explores through his various characterizations of judgments of beauty. On one hand, judgments of beauty are based on feeling (the object is not subsumed under the concept of a purpose that it is supposed to satisfy). On the other hand however, judgments of beauty are unlike judgments of the agreeable in not involving desire for the object. So what does it mean to make a pure aesthetic judgment of the beautiful?
“Judgments of understanding,” on the other hand, are based on facts and can be right or wrong. Hume continues to state that there are rules that can be employed to resolve critical disputes, which requires that one be able to prove that the rule is applicable to any case. It is then possible that the “bad critic” may acknowledge his/her error. Hume writes that in “every creature there is a sound and defective state,” and those with a sound state are “true judges.” His thesis is that true judges have the ability to transcend their cultural-historical situation and exercise a sense of taste with objectivity that relies on facts. 2.
Though each theory deserves the general respect they have gathered, both are under constant attack from objection and scrutiny. Utilitarianism is criticized for only looking at the results of actions, not at the desires or intentions which motivate them, while virtue ethics comes under attack for social standards that are considered as outdated. Both theories are not perfect, nor completely wrong. But when one considers the philosophies and follows each theory, utilitarianism proves to be the superior ethical system than virtue theory. Virtue ethics revolves around the concept of perfect happiness.
His principle explained that a good action is on that brought pleasure while one that caused pain was evil. Bentham goes ahead to differentiate virtue and pleasure and their relation to utilitarianism. He explains that a virtuous person is on who stands for moral values and safeguards the happiness of those around him, qualities that are closely related to utilitarianism as they bring about pleasure (Driver 1). They also argue that the purpose of an action is independent from the morality of the action. These arguments give us the perception that Utilitarianism is different from other moral aspects.
His essay, first published in 1757, “Of the Standards of Taste” strives to answer the longstanding question of the objectivity of judgements of taste. Hume argues that there are no objective criteria which regulate the correctness of judgements of taste. He never withdraws his belief that recognition of beauty is fundamentally reliant on sentiment. His essay on taste, however, is his defense of an aesthetic standard in which he declares that some opinions are better than others in the sense of being more accurate . Hume illustrates that not all opinions are equally good, but they appear to have the same claim upon us.
AU then, treats all agents equally and looks only for the greatest amount of pleasure, or good to be found in any situation. Critics of Act Utilitarianism argue that AU cannot be a correct ethical theory, as it can present unjust answers to ethical dilemmas, which a rational being can see as incorrect, and no correct ... ... middle of paper ... ...s, and common arguments against AU are in themselves incorrect. Because of this, it is the authors opinion that AU provides a good standard for ethical thinking. Works Cited V. Druidess. 2009.