1. (711 Words For Question One) In class, we studied the idea of morality in the online video lecture “Why Be Moral,” where we heard the fictional story of “Smith,” the successful cheater (Hettche, 2011). Smith was a man who excelled all throughout his life by cheating. First, he began cheating on spelling tests in elementary school, then continued cheating on into junior high. Many people thought that Smith’s cheating would surely catch up to him later on, but he continued to succeed with the assistance of technologies such as spell check. Later, Smith became a very successful businessman, using valuable skills that he obtained through cheating to find shortcuts and loopholes in the business world (Hettche, 2011). Although many people saw …show more content…
According to the Consequentialist Principle of Utilitarianism, “the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results that flow from it” (Pojman, 2002, p.109). Relating this idea to the story of Smith, we must determine what the results from Smith’s cheating actually were. As a result of cheating, Smith made good grades, graduated from school, succeeded in business, and was liked by many people. Being that Smith chose to act the way he did, the act of cheating itself must not have had any negative impact on Smith. With that being said, to Smith, the results of cheating were good, he gained a positive experience from cheating. If the results that flowed from Smith’s actions were good to him, then according to the Consequentialist Principle and Utilitarianism, the act of cheating is good, and therefore Smith was living a good life. The story of Smith may seem common and simple on the surface, but as we have determined, it may be a little deeper than one may first conclude. According to Virtue Ethics, Smith was living a bad life, and according to Utilitarianism, Smith was living a good life. Different views on different situations can yield various conclusions about someone’s actions, exactly as we have discovered with the story of Smith as analyzed by Virtue Ethics and …show more content…
Consider a situation where a criminal has been tried, prosecuted, and proven guilty of murder, and this person has the potential of murdering another person if he or she is let go back out into the public. When the criminal is executed, we can apply Utilitarian principles to the outcome of the situation. Being that the criminal was sentenced to death for his actions, he suffered some pain. However, by sentencing him to death, the public is now safer than it was before, and many people’s lives are better protected because that is one less potential murderer that is out in the public. A Utilitarian would look at this situation as a positive outcome for the public, and that the greatest good was done for the greatest number of people at the expense of one person (the criminal). With that being said, in this case we can argue that people’s rights were protected by Utilitarianism in that the decision to execute the criminal was based on the thought that by doing so, the public would be better protected and the greatest amount of good would be done for the greatest amount of
In Martin Perlmutter's essay "Desert and Capital Punishment," he attempts to illustrate that social utility is a poor method of evaluating the legitimacy of it. Perlmutter claims that a punishment must be "backward looking," meaning that it is based on a past wrongdoing. A utilitarian justification of capital punishment strays from the definition of the term "punishment" because it is "forward looking." An argument for social utility maintains that the death penalty should result in a greater good and the consequences must outweigh the harm, thereby increasing overall happiness in the world. Perlmutter recognizes the three potential benefits of a punishment as the rehabilitation of an offender, protection for other possible victims, and deterring other people from committing the same crime. The death penalty however, obviously does not rehabilitate a victim nor does it do a better job at protecting other potential victims than life imprisonment. Since a punishment must inflict harm on an individual, deterrence is the only argument that utilitarians can use to defend the death penalty. The question then ari...
In Utilitarianism For and Against by Bernard Williams, Williams has an argument that is based on the value of integrity. Integrity is defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles or moral uprightness. In Williams argument he believes in certain circumstances utilitarianism requires agents to abandon their personal projects and commitments. This lead Williams to claim that utilitarianism is an attack on an agent’s integrity. In my essay I will explain Williams’s argument on utilitarianism and how he is lead to believe it is an attack on an agent’s integrity. I will also explain why he thinks it can force us to abandon our personal projects. Within my essay I will also explain the theory of right conduct explained by Timmons in the book Moral Theory. I will also explain the notions of personal responsibility explained by Williams, as well as the notion of personal projects and commitments and the notion of integrity.
In “The Death of Honesty,” William Damon raises the concern that current apathy towards increasing dishonesty threatens democracy. In this essay taken from the online volume “Endangered Virtues ” published by the Hoover Institute in 2012, Damon initially concedes that there are situations where lying could be considered acceptable. However, with that being acknowledged, he transitions to his main premise that honesty is losing its importance in society and will lead to its downfall, and he cites examples in politics, law, journalism, and business in contemporary society where dishonesty is expected, and even, condoned. Damon finally directs his remarks pointedly at teachers and current students who accept cheating in schools. To persuade his audience of university students and academic scholars, Damon uses many rhetorical devices and styles including classical logos, pathos, and ethos, and allusions to make an ethical appeal regarding the necessity for honesty.
Adam Smith’s moral theory explains that there is an “impartial spectator” inside each of us that aids in determining what is morally and universally good, using our personal experiences and human commonalities. In order to judge our own actions, we judge and observe the actions of others, at the same time observing their judgments of us. Our impartial spectator efficiently allows us to take on two perceptions at once: one is our own, determined by self-interest, and the other is an imaginary observer. This paper will analyze the impartiality of the impartial spectator, by analyzing how humans are motivated by self-interest.
“For every clever person who goes to the trouble of creating an incentive scheme, there is an army of people, clever and otherwise, who will inevitably spend even more time trying to beat it. Cheating may or may not be human nature, but it is certainly a prominent feature in just about every human endeavor. Cheating is a primordial economic act: getting more or less” (21). This quote is important because it proves how everyone has cheated once. In many cases it is true, people often cheat on tests or even on their diet. Not everyone can live up to their expectations. Some may justify it, others proudly proclaim it, and others will try denying their cheating vigorously. Most people consider cheating as a bad and unwise action. In this novel, it gave two examples of cheaters, school teachers and sumo wrestlers. It shows how both authors can take two different people and still find something similar with both of them, like cheating.
In the article “The Penalty of Death”, written by H. L. Mencken, utilitarian principles are used to cover up for a system that wants results. All of the reasons that Mencken gives as justifications do not give concrete evidence of why the death penalty should continue as a means of punishment. The article states, “Any lesser penalty leaves them feeling that the criminal has got the better of society...” This statement alone demonstrates how he believes the death penalty brings justice and satisfaction to the people. Mencken creates the points he makes in his article in order to give society a way to make the death penalty seem less intrusive on moral principles and more of a necessary act.
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
Philosophy has offered many works and debates on morality and ethics. One of these works is the concept of utilitarianism. One of the most prominent writers on the theory of utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. He suggests that utilitarianism may be the guide for morality. His writing on utilitarianism transcends through the present in relation to the famous movie The Matrix. In the movie, people live in a virtual reality where they are relatively happy and content and the real world is filled with a constant struggle to survive. The movie revolves around Neo, who tries to free people from the virtual world in which they live. In light of utilitarianism, freeing these people would be morally wrong. In this essay, I will first explain John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and some objections it faces. I will then talk about utilitarianism’s relation to The Matrix and why it would be morally wrong to free the people and subject them to the real world.
People tend to blindly cheat to get what they want, and go about it as if it were normal. People don’t usually want to work for things if they can get it the easy way. In Stephen L. Carter’s article “The Rules about Rules”, Carter explains why Americans choose to cheat and how they don’t necessarily know right from wrong. Carter’s interpretation is accurate people do lack integrity due to having low self-esteem, and not having the courage to be different and separating themselves from the crowd.
The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology article The Cheater’s High: The Unexpected Affective Benefits of Unethical Behavior challenges this consensus and demonstrates that unethical behavior stimulates positive affect, termed “cheater’s high.” Cheating is associated with self-satisfaction, and the “high” one receives from cheating only increases with self-deception about the unethical behavior. Study 1 gauged affective predictions following unethical behavior. In Study 1a, participants were asked to predict whether they’d predict to feel positive effects after cheating on a hypothetical test that would earn them more money the more they answer correctly. Participants generally responded negative, implying that there is no predicted “cheater’s
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.