Harrison claims that these people are, “following Utilitarianism instead, which follows consequentialism”. It is the contrast to the Categorical Imperative. Utilitarianism has its starting point with the result. They consider something as morally good if a good result comes out of it, but if there is a bad consequence, then they consider it morally wrong. This places more development in the ends than it does the means.
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.
Morality as a whole tries to create a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad. Making decisions should arguably always be aimed towards good. Under the philosophical doctrine of Utilitarianism, philosophers like Bentham and Mill recognize that human kind should make their lives useful and good through bringing about happiness or pleasure. The idea of the “Greatest Happiness Principle was introduced by Bentham, who was a Utilitarian predecessor to Mill. According to Mill, human lives should abide by the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle states that actions are good as they tend to promote happiness; and bad as they promote the reverse of happiness, therefore humans should make a conscious choice of action that will lead
A pleasure could be consi... ... middle of paper ... ...laves as possible. Is it still valid to call it “good” if one is able to fulfill this desire? Leaving moral judgment to be based off of human desires can turn downhill because sometimes people may desire something that is either trivial, crazy, or atrocious. Those who defend preference utilitarianism may try to set limits on the types of desires good and bad could be based on. For example if a person was found to be extremely uneducated, the goals they would want to achieve may not reflect what they would desire if they knew more about the world.
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
Utilitarianism is one of the best known and influential moral theories. There are two different meanings to two words but at times, they can be the same perspective. Utilitarianism is different from ethical theories it makes the rightness and wrongness of an act dependent to a person. The right thing can be done from a bad motivation. There are consequences including good or bad by the act.
Although the idea of utilitarianism sounds ideal in terms of an ethical theory, we must examine the fact that all suppositions have their faults, and utilitarianism is no exception. Many objections have been provided against the theory, but one that appears ... ... middle of paper ... ...m as utility is only determined from the biased perspective of the agent. However, the theory may be saved if it is modified to include the influence of commitments to loved ones, whilst maintaining general impartiality. Consequently, Classical Utilitarianism with slightly less constrictive restraints surrounding impartiality can continue to be a viable moral theory despite this objection. Works Cited Mill, J.S.
A rule utilitarian would probably be interested in thinking along the lines of: a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible rules. So we should judge the morality of individual actions by referring to general moral rules, and we should judge particular moral rules by seeing whether their acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-being than other possible rules. The key difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that act utilitarians calculate every action for beneficial outcome for ourselves, while rule utilitarianism is based on a rule promoting beneficial outcomes. Once the rule has been established then one must follow
In contrast to ethical egoism is utilitarianism. Utilitarianists view morality as when an action promotes the greatest balance of good over bad for all people. "Utilitarianism is a teleological, goal-directed theory emphasizing happiness as the end result of human action" (Freeman 49). In Freeman's book on ethics, he discusses Holmes' proposal of two types of teleological ethical theories that apply to these two differing consequentialist views. Holmes' proposal is that of micro and macro ethics.
Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.