In attempting to predict possible contentions one could have to what has been said, the stability of the argument will be emphasized. Premise 1 of the Utilitarian argument reads that if something beneficial results in overall happiness, and it does no harm to anything else of importance, then you are morally obligated to advocate for it. If one were to for some reason or another oppose this, my best guess would be that they would have a problem with the obligatory factor in it. Perhaps they would think that while it may be good for a person to advocate for something that helped them, that it would not then be entirely necessary to, and thus supererogatory (going beyond the requirements of duty, or greater than what is needed). 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.
If there was no maxims, then there would be no universal morality in which we could uphold. Although Kant says this, he still stresses the importance of free will. Even if something is a Categorical imperative or a universal maxim, he says it is not forceful to follow it through and that we are free whether or not to do the morally right
Morality that is case-by-case or situational is a morality that is based off of the circumstances and moral facts of each individual situation rather than the same considerations for similar actions. Moral particularism supports my claim because it argues that the import of any consideration is context dependent, that exceptions can be found to any suggested principles, and that moral wisdom consists in the ability to include them under codified rules (Little, Margaret). When making a decision, a generalist is concerned with the good and bad that will come from an outcome. The generalist strives to always maximize happiness or goodness (Hursthouse, Rosalind). In order to maximize happiness, the generalist takes a situation and uses the same considerations for deciding whether or not one should perform an action case by case based on the goodness gained from the action.
There is not anyone watching over me or judging my moral code. However, I just feel responsible for my actions; a moral code should always be in my consciousness, and it tells me how to act in all situations. A thing to remember about these theories is that they are concerned with the greater good. Utilitarians do not care about a person personal life or whether a person actions happen to hurt some people. As long as the results of a person’s actions lead to more pleasure than pain, you are in the clear.
However, their reasons are parallel to each other. Mill argues that actions have to be a focus on the concept of utility, since actions might be morally wrong and still be part of maximizing happiness. In Kant 's perspective, people have to do what is good based on their duty to the general public and not because it is morally right. Kant also believes that people’s rights are not to be disobeyed for the benefit of everyone. Mill would disagree with this theory since Utilitarianism accepts the concept to violate others rights if the outcome brings general happiness.
This is not the point of Kant’s theory however, because he does not look at consequences for determining moral law, but rather at maxims. In order to determine what may produce more or less harm, it is true we would need to know the consequences of our actions. But, sometimes we cannot be sure of our consequences, and thus when we look at our intentions we can know if we are acting fairly (without deception or coercion) and decide on an action that would be moral based on a maxim of good will. O’Neil does point out that it is possible for a society to endure more pain in effort to protect individuals from being used as a mere means, yet they are doing so in a way to be the most fair, and therefore their actions can still be applied to the theme of giving everyone a fair value in life
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.
Above all we desire a meaning to life. We can find meaning by acting morally. Therefore, one is not obligated to obey a law that contradicts morality. After all, it would be morally wrong of the government to deny anyone meaning in life. Works Cited * Singer, Peter.
It is important to not only weigh the value of the action but also the mind of the individual preforming the act. If they are forced into doing an act that they genuine did not act upon then he or she should not be held responsible. Ultimately, although his conclusion to the Principle of Alternative Possibilities can be viable in some case, it does not manage to completely shadow the idea of morality state in the Principle and is thus rendered false.
Similarly in the case of adopting subjectivism, as long as the person committing the action thought this action was morally permissible then that statement could not be made. If we adopted ethical nihilism, statements like this would not be able to have any truth value. Since ethical nihilism states that there are no correct answers whatsoever we could not state that something was wrong and give it a truth factor. In order to do this there must be some correct alternative but nihilism states there is no such