Part One: Area of Philosophy
The three situations that we are looking at and examining all fall under the branch of philosophy known as “ethics”. Which is studying the ethics of the situations that were presented to us. The two philosophers who will be exploring these situations with me are Jeremy Bentham and Soren Kierkegaard. Bentham is the founder of “Utilitarianism” which is the belief that we should act to promote the greatest amount of happiness and create the least amount of suffering possible for the greatest number of people. While Kierkegaard is a proponent of the philosophy of “Existentialism” which is the belief that focuses on the individualities and their own uniqueness.
Part Two: Argument Analysis
Bentham along with developing
…show more content…
Bentham further stretches this to society and believes that if everyone has the opportunity to achieve genuine pleasure that society would be better off. This is a sound assumption in theory, however it is a bit too idealistic. As history, has shown us human greed would not allow Utilitarianism and Bentham’s social adaption of hedonism to be present in society. His pattern of thinking logically brings him to his conclusion as well. The assumption that the population overall would adapt to this is not likely. As for Kierkegaard, his existentialism ideals lead to more individual thought as well as individuality overall. His famous phase “the crowd is untruth” is a safe assumption as well. He believes that people are too willing to fall in line with a crowd and sacrifice their individuality to a group to fit in. He makes a valid point that isn’t really living, because you are not being a unique individual but rather you fall in line with whatever group you belong to. We can see examples of this in religion, and political parties. Kierkegaard just like Bentham made sound assumptions that led him to his conclusion, along with valid points as
At times in a person’s life, they might come across a few situations that leave them with a major decision between two or more options that challenge what they believe or what they might think is wrong or right. These are known as ethical dilemmas. Be it seeing a friend steal something and choosing between being honest and speaking up or letting it go. It can also be getting paid more than you earned and deciding if you’re going to be greedy and keep the money or return it. We run into these situations in our lives, some bigger and more influential on our destiny’s while others are small with no real consequences.
Throughout this paper I will examine three different ethical views and interpret the ways in which one would respond to the scenario at hand. The initial ethical view is composed of cultural relativism. Another view is Kantian ethics. The final view involves utilitarianism. When presenting these views, I will describe each ethical view, and also I will speak abouts how a person who abides by the given ethical view would respond to the situation.
moral decisions, we will be analyzing why this scenario poses a dilemma, possible actions that
In everyday experience one is likely to encounter ethical dilemmas. This paper presents one framework for working through any given dilemma. I have chosen to integrate three theories from Ruggerio Vicent, Bernard Lonergan and Robert Kegan. When making a deceison you must collabrate different views to come to a one conclusion. Ruggerio factors in different aspects that will take effect. Depending on which order of conciousness you are in by Kegan we can closely compare this with Ruggerio's theories also. As I continue I will closely describe the three theories with Kegan and how this will compare with Lonerga's theory combining the three. While Family,
“The thing is to understand myself, to see what God really wishes me to do; the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die” (Kierkegaard 95). Søren Kierkegaard was a clear supporter of expressing our own personality. He wanted us to take the time to find our true selves. Even though he acknowledged there were social systems in our society, he still believed we were our own individual human being. The only way to make sense of our life and find our individuality is to embrace our faith in God. Kierkegaard wanted human beings to be able to exercise their freedom. Human beings should not postpone their choices simply because they do not know the universal truth. As humans we cannot postpone our choices because we will never
By looking further into this dilemma using various ethical standpoints allows for a broad understanding of principles and complexity in a specific situation with these paradigms. The focuses are three prominent ethical paradigms such as: teleological utilitarianism, deontological duty theories and virtue based ethics. Each of these three paradigms will be applied to the aforementioned dilemma, each will be evaluated and the best option will be revealed.
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).
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
Explain why Mill distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures and assess whether he achieves his aim or not.
Bentham realised that because this theory is based on the outcome of our actions it may be difficult to assess fairly which action will produce the most happiness. He therefore developed the ‘hedonistic calculus’, a form of calculating the happiness resulting from an act by assessing 7 different factors of the pleasure produced such as intensity and duration. In doing this Bentham was attempting to create some sort of ...
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
We have our own moral codes but our decisions are solely based on the impact of our perspective on the people’s welfare and happiness. Although it is in our perspective as utilitarian to decide what actions to make, the theory of utilitarianism has strengths and weaknesses.
Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible
In this assignment we will be identifying an ethical dilemma an individual has experienced. We will begin with a short introduction of what an ethical dilemma is, moving on to providing brief details of the dilemma an individual has experienced. We will then go on to selecting one ethical theory, to show how it can help an individual understand and deal with the situation when placed within, followed by a conclusion.
Over time, the actions of mankind have been the victim of two vague labels, right and wrong. The criteria for these labels are not clearly defined, but they still seem to be the standard by which the actions of man are judged. There are some people that abide by a deontological view when it comes to judging the nature of actions; the deontological view holds that it is a person's intention that makes an action right or wrong. On the other hand there is the teleological view which holds that it is the result of an action is what makes that act right or wrong. In this essay I will be dealing with utilitarianism, a philosophical principle that holds a teleological view when it comes the nature of actions. To solely discuss utilitarianism is much too broad of topic and must be broken down, so I will discuss specifically quantitative utilitarianism as presented by Jeremy Bentham. In this essay I will present the argument of Bentham supporting his respective form of utilitarianism and I will give my critique of this argument along the way.