Fulfilling a duty is like having to say we are responsible enough to take care of what needs to be done. Laws are morally good for people who are capable of following what is right. Everyone should be treated equally by everyone. They are both competing whether it is right or wrong, while they only believe that consequences can solve the problem of an act. It would be producing of how great good for the greatest number of people.
This is a view that goes by “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This means that the more people who are happy and can benefit from a certain action is the morally right thing to do. Happiness, in utilitarianism, comes from pleasure and the absence of pain, and unhappiness comes from the deprivation of pleasure which then would equal pain. The utilitarian approach to morality insinuates that no moral act or rule is essentially right or wrong. Instead, the rightness or wrongness of either an act or rule, is entirely a matter of the overall nonmoral good (pleasure, happiness, satisfaction of individual desire) produced in the consequences of doing that act or following that rule. In a nutshell, morality is a means to an end, but it is not an end in itself.
Also, it focuses on the motivation of actions, has clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Furthermore, it relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.
Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is the greatest good of the greatest number. It takes the view that an action is right if it is likely to produce the best consequences compared to all the other possible actions. The best consequences are those which involve the maximization of what is good and the minimization of what is bad. The worst consequences are which involve the maximization of what is bad and the minimization of what is good. The basic premise is the idea that the greatest good comes from creating happiness for the greatest number of people.
He goes as far as to say that actions will posses moral worth only if they are a result of our good will, similar to that which we intend to achieve(Shafer-Landau, pg. 70). Good will is a must-have virtue according to Kant, which then ties us into categorical imperatives. If we are to be driven by a good will, or a will to do what is right, then we must conjecture ... ... middle of paper ... ...al philosophy is so acclaimed is because it provides a stringent moral view without loopholes—it’s absolute. Kant was very clever in forming categorical imperatives and valuing good will, universal attributes which can be applied to everyone to determine moral status.
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.
Kant also created formulations in order to help decide whether if an action of duty is considerable for judgment. Kant’s emphasis on the motive of an action has many pros in comparison to the utilitarianism strategy of judging on the amount of happiness created. There are many flaws in considering the consequence of an action, while there are no flaws when considering the purity of good will in a person’s motive. Kant’s deontological theory of judging actions by an individual’s motives is the most fair and accurate evaluation of good moral. Immanuel Kant developed a moral theory on the sole perspective of a person’s motive or intent of their action.
According to Kant deontological ethical theory focuses on duty. It is viewed that humans have a duty in doing what is ethically right in any given situation. However, the categorical imperative does not have the same ideas it does not consist of duties to our selves. As Kant indicates in idea of the Kingdom of Ends that our duty lies in treating all human being as ends in and of themselves instead of as a means to an end it is perceived as being an extension to our selves. It is based on the desires of a person in how they want to be treated and will succeed as long as the universal good is applied as well.
What matters are the consequences of an action, if happiness is maximized by a particular action then that action is morally right regardless of other considerations. Utilitarianism claims morally right and wrong actions, right actions will maximize utility and minimize disutility. Mill discusses hedonistic utilitarianism which is defined as “the morally best action is the one that maximizes happiness and minimizes pain; we try to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.” Hedonistic Utilitarianism is the theory based on that the right action is the one that produces or more likely produces... ... middle of paper ... ... as they tend to promote happiness and wrong if they produce the reverse of happiness. The great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world, but for individuals of which the good of the world is made up of. Through Mill’s reading “Defense of Utilitarianism” his idea was that there are many simple, sensual pleasures in life.
Lastly, I will explain the reasoning behind why I favor Aristotle's ethics over Kant's. Both philosophies appeals to reason, but they come to different conclusions. To start, according to Aristotle, the end of every action aims at a good (1094a1-10). He goes on to say that the highest good is the most complete, that it is good in itself and is not chosen to gain something else. Aristotle believes that the highest good that every action aims for is happiness, because it is self-sufficient (1097b1-10).