Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
short note on utilitarianism
ethical theories in philosophy
short note on utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: short note on utilitarianism
The Theory of Utility teaches that we make our decisions in life based on the basic principle of maximizing happiness – which can be measured in pleasure and pain. Morality can also be defined as that which brings about the largest amount of happiness, and the least pain. Unlike other theories, however, Utility states the happiness of all is to be considered over the happiness of one. When faced with a choice, one must choose the option that will cause the greatest pleasure and the least pain. Applying this part of the Utilitarian argument to the supplied scenario, it would seem that Utility would say stealing the ice cream and breaking the law are the morally right course of action. However, Utility continues on in its teaching stating that …show more content…
In the case of the overweight child, he is not only robbed, but he is also judged and discriminated against based on looks. Legality aside, not only is this child robbed of his property, he is also robbed of the character growth he would have received if he had been educated and taught to share. By being taught to share he is not only learning how to treat everyone as equals, but also that true pleasure is the lasting pleasure one receives in sharing happiness with others, and not the momentary pleasure of having all the happiness for oneself. This child is also being subjected to judgement based on looks. The ice cream thief looks at this child and assumes that he is overweight because he eats too much and therefore won’t miss another snack. There are multiple factors that can cause childhood obesity, and none of them are healthy. Can one always tell why someone is overweight just by looking at them? Overeating and lack of exercise are factors. There are also medical, socioeconomical, or psychological factors involved. This overweight child could be just as poor and malnourished as the three waifs. Poverty and obesity of this kind are known to have negative psychological effects, especially in children. If a child was singled out, judged based on looks and had their food stolen in school it would be called bullying. Depending on the mental state …show more content…
Whether it was stolen or shared, the result is the same: the waifs receive the ice cream. However, through Utility we understand the deeper aspects. If the ice cream was shared, the generosity and kindness would have added to the pleasure of the ice cream itself. These waifs would learn the lasting pleasure that comes from sharing, compassion, and being treated as equals. And these pleasures can be maximized by sharing them. However, according to the example, the ice cream was stolen and given to them. What these three waifs have learned is that it is ok to steal whatever one wants. This was not stolen to stave off death. These envious waifs coveted the rare delicacy, someone comes along and steals it for them. They have learned to steal for pleasure. Not even for necessity, but purely for pleasure. And they have also learned to judge others based on looks. Steal from others because they appear to have, so they must be able to get
Utilitarianism is an ethical study often associated with “politics of interest” because the ideas of utilitarianism are set on maximizing utility and efficiency. This idea focuses on individualism and aggregating what is best for society as a whole, specifically the economic aspect of society. Deontology is an ethical study that is almost the complete opposite of utilitarian beliefs. Deontology is an ethical study often associated with “politics of conscious” because it approaches issues with the idea of right vs. wrong on mind. This ethical viewpoint is rooted in fulfilling God’s laws and focuses on equal rights. An ethical dilemma case that revolves around the utilitarianism view is The Yellowstone National Park case. The controversy in
One of the reasons that morality is such an abstract and complicated idea is its duality of nature. An action that looks clearly and absolutely immoral for one person maybe completely moral for another person at the same time. It seems like morality acquires different nature when it is trying to be defined by different people. Throughout the history, there have been many attempts to change this nature of morality. Philosophers, from Aristotle to Kant, tried to make morality an absolute (objective) idea by introducing different moral theories that sought to place rationality above any other factor in determining what morality is. They had a good reason for their attempts; when morality is adequately rationalized, it is no longer abstract, and it is no longer elusive.
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
Utilitarianism can be used to describe the reasons why healthcare should be made available universally; why maximization of access to healthcare should be pursued for the greatest number of people (Wilson). Utilitarianism is a theory of consequences, in which the results of actions should determine their moral value. It can be summarized by the greatest happiness principle, which John Stuart Mill describes as “happiness is desirable, and the only thing desirable, as an end; all other things being only desirable as means to that end” (Wilson). For Mill, pleasure is the prime motivator, and all beings must seek out maximum pleasure for themselves and others. This principle can be used to judge the morality of healthcare policies in terms of how they provide access to healthcare for the greatest number of people. In order to make the claim that healthcare is a human right is not sufficient; we must then be able to justify its expansion by illustrating its benefits (Wilson).
Utilitarianism is zdefined, as the right way to act is one that maximizes your happiness, (pleasure and happiness is the absence of pain) while the wrong way is one that produces the opposite i.e. pain. Unhappiness here is defined as pain or the opposite of happiness. This is the basis of utilitarianism or what Mill calls the “greatest happiness principle” and it is the best ethical theory by which humans should follow. The argument for the above is as follows
Utilitarianism concerns itself with promoting the best outcomes for the greatest numbers in order to be ethically acceptable, utilitarianism is a consequentialist approach which aims at results of actions regardless of how they are carried out. Utilitarian monsters, a term coined by R. Nozick, are those who “get enormously greater gains in utility from any sacrifice of others than these others lose. For, unacceptably, the theory seems to require that we all be sacrificed in the monster’s maw, in order to increase total utility”.(The Utility Monster, 2011)
The utilitarian argument can also be used to say that hESC research and use is unethical. This philosophy has a viewpoint that considers the right action to be the one that does the greater good ( ). You could say curing people with disease or injuries are a good thing to do. But would it be the best thing to do? Wouldn’t having a whole new life from birth be better than curing an eighty-year-old Alzheimer’s patient? Using that example, the greater good would be not to use embryos for research. Another question utilitarianism uses asks to determine morality is what will happen as a consequence of doing something. One consequence of using embryos would be that a life is ended before birth. A whole life would be ended before
Imagine a child living in a hot, government owned apartment in Chicago. He has no father. With his single, jobless mother he struggles to the words of the founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” (The Declaration of Independence). This is one of the most famous phrases in the US Declaration of Independence and has become the underpinning of the dreams of millions of people around the world. Although the words are different, these sentiments are reflected in the political and economical policies of many democracies. While the notion of ‘happiness for all’ seems like the obvious solution to many of our persistent problems, we inevitably encounter conflicts between our actions and our morals. “The state is based on……the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities.”(Marx, 1992). This essay focuses on the issues of a prominent theory, Utilitarianism as it blends and encompasses both areas of Economics and Ethics which have become the basis of our governmental bodies.
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.
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.
Moreover, in consequentialist normative principles " it require us that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action." Then, identify if the "total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences." If based in our analysis the good "consequences are greater," then "the action is morally proper. In the given situation, stealing for food for a hungry child suggest plenty of good consequences when we try to focus on the true and good intention of the agent. We may think that he is good because he/she is trying to save only the boy from hunger or even from tragic death. Thus, millions of children around the world had died because of
I see utilitarianism as a powerful and persuasive approach to ethics in philosophy. There are varieties of views discussed but utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally correct action is the action that produces the most good. In its simplest form it is maximizing pleasure while minimizing pain. There are a few ways to think about this claim. 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. This version of the good is one that must maximize the good for everyone. My good counts just the same as anyone else 's good.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and defended by James Mill. The theory says, that all the activities should be directed towards the accomplishment of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is impractical and very unrealistic because, it refuses to focus on the individuals values, morals, and happiness. Utilitarianism endorse risking ones life for the sake of other is not and in fact it rewards such behavior. Utilitarianism mentions that if the outcome of the one persons death saves many lives then therefore it is obligated to do so.
The child probably thought that stealing the medicine and the food was justified because his mother needed the help and he needed his mother (Crandell, T.L.,Crandell, C.H., Vander Zanden, J.W. (2012)). Kulburg would say that it does not matter the moral reasoning behind the action but instead that there is a universal morality and one would not say that because the boy had good intentions for stealing verses a common thief who steals just to steal because universally the action of stealing is a morally wrong thing to do that cannot be justified (Crandell, T.L.,Crandell, C.H., Vander Zanden, J.W. (2012)). Piaget would look more that the child would think that his action was morally justified because he was raised in a way that he needed to help his mother in any way possible no matter what he had to do. This child was under the impression that helping his mother was a moral action and therefore stealing to help her would be morally justified in his case (Crandell, T.L.,Crandell, C.H., Vander Zanden, J.W. (2012)). In the case of morality what is moral verses what is immoral is a very hard study, and to know the right answer can be especially hard in the country that we live
The principle of Utility is considered as the “greatest happiness principle”. Mill defines this principle as actions are right if they tend to promote the most happiness and wrong if they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Utilitarianism, 7). There have been many arguments against the principle of utility. People who are against this principle argue that there is no time to calculate what generates the most happiness in a given situation. Mills responds to this objection by explaining how secondary moral reasoning and the fundamental principle of morality are taken into account when deciding what promotes the most overall happiness. After explaining his argument, I believe Mill succeeds in responding to the objection, he explains why it shouldn’t be a problem when weighing the best possible outcome by using the secondary moral rule as the first principle.