One good way to think about is that this theory is a form of consequentialism. The right action is understood basically in terms of consequences produced. The utilitarian view is one thought to maximize the overall good; that good being the good of others as well as the good of ones self. Utilitarianism is also not partial. Everybody 's happiness counts the same.
The basic premise is the idea that the greatest good comes from creating happiness for the greatest number of people. Pleasure and freedom of pain are the only things desirable as ends. In Utilitarianism it is the greatest happiness of everyone involved which is right, so one must be impartial to one's own happiness. Utilitarianism takes the view that if needed, you should sacrifice your own happiness for greater pleasure of others. For Utilitarianism bases action on pleasure and pain.
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.
Utilitarian Position • Act-Utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that a person’s act is morally right if and only if it produces at last as much happiness as any other act that the person could perform at that time. Pros and Cons: Act utilitarianism is often regarded as the most natural interpretations of the utilitarian ideal. If our aim is always to produce
Deontology promotes a fair opportunity at happiness and self-advocacy, whereas Utilitarianism’s objective is the promotion of happiness. While happiness is indeed a great thing, I worry that by only looking at the result of an action Utilitarian actions could far too easily infringe upon one’s right to self-determination. I prefer Deontology for this reason and for its objective of respecting human autonomy and mandate to treat humanity always as an end and not as a simple means.
Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results. A consequentialist will assess both the positive and negative effects of an action before taking it.
This principle promotes a life of more pleasure than pain by choosing actions that produce more happiness. These are conscious actions made that follow a life of utility and act in accordance with the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” Though Mill’s critics would argue that Utilitarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality by not fulfilling a life of happiness, creating selfish or expedient people, and reducing human experience to animals, I would have to disagree. This principle promotes happiness and pleasure for all, along with aiding individuals to be less selfish, and an even slate for people of all characters. I find the “Greatest Happiness Principle” to be a relevant and altruistic foundation of morality. There is an emphasis on lives containing more pleasure than pain under the rule that one person cannot put their own happiness above others.
Utilitarians are people who believe that good is everyone’s pleasure. This is simply what they call general happiness. They believe that happiness is primarily pleasure and the absence of pain. Utilitarians think actions that give most pleasure to a larger quantity of people is morally right. Their two basic view consist of believing that we should nurture everyone’s happiness and not just one’s own, and accepting that some pleasures are bigger than others.
Utilitarianism can be defined as: the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians seem to believe that humans only have two desires, or motivations: happiness and pain. They want as much happiness as possible and the least amount of pain as any other action. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that whether it is right, depends solely on its consequences. On the contrary, Kantian ethics value every individual rather than the majority.
Consequentialism is the view that, according to FoE, the morality of actions, policies, motives, or rules depends on their producing the best actual or expected results. In other words, do as much good as you can. Act utilitarianism, a sub-group of consequentialism, claims that well-being is the only thing that is intrinsically valuable, and that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances. Basically, Act utilitarianism agrees completely with consequentialism, but ensure that those actual or expected results end up improving well-being. Consequentialism, as a whole, while extremely similar to other moral theories, such as hedonism and the desire theory, are, in fact, slightly different.