A Paper on Utilitarianism Three of the main moral theories in ethics are Kant’s moral theory, utilitarianism, and virtue ethics. Each of these has its own benefits and pitfalls, most of which counter the other’s strengths and weaknesses. In this paper, I will be analyzing all of these differences while presenting my own version of utilitarianism that I believe to be the best and most promising theory, as well as applying it to a real world example. Kant’s moral theory has two main principles or formulas: the formula of the end in itself and the universal maxim principle. First, the end in itself formula speaks about the duty that all people have to treat people as the ends and not just the means to an end. The universal maxim principle states …show more content…
Similarly, if everyone was responsible for only themselves, unless it could benefit them, then everyone in the world would be much harsher and much colder to other people. Utilitarianism is slightly different though. It is more about producing the best results. Utilitarianism states that it is everyone’s duty to do what would improve the worlds overall utility, or the overall well-being of everyone in the world. This can be split into two different versions: act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism can be defined as believing that an action is morally right when it causes the most good for the most people. Rule utilitarianism is the belief that an action is morally right only if it adheres to a rule that leads to the most good. This, similar to Kant’s moral theory, also has some objections to it. One of these is the absurd implications objection, which states that utilitarianism can be rejected because otherwise, we would have to accept the absurd implications such as if two acts both result in the same amount of utility gained worldwide, and the only difference between the two is one of them involves lying …show more content…
For that reason, I will apply my theory to a practical moral dilemma, the abortion debate. The first thing that needs to be said is that, according to my theory, if giving birth to the child would bring medical risks to the mother or child, there would be an obligation to receive the abortion. The same argument could be given for aborting, saying that if the abortion would harm the mother, it would be better to keep than to bring harm to one’s self. Now, the main argument against abortion is that a fetus is a human being that has done nothing wrong and innocent human beings should never be killed. A good argument against this was formed by Jarvis Thomson, which provides the following example: You wake up in bed with a famous violinist, who has a fatal kidney problem and you are the only person who can save him. So his people kidnap you and hook your kidneys up to his to help circulate the poison out of his blood. It would take nine months to get all of the poison out of his system. It would obviously be a nice thing to do to allow them to keep using your kidneys, but is it your obligation to help this person, even if you don’t want to (394, Cahn)? My theory states that it isn’t required that you would help this person. Sure, it would be the nice thing to do but you are not in any way obligated to stay this way. The utility this man would gain would be offset, if not negated, by the drop in utility you
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.
On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped the first atomic bomb used in warfare against the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later on August 9th, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. Just six days after the second atomic explosion, Japan announced its unconditional surrender to the United States after almost four years of war. Philosophers have argued that President Truman took a utilitarian point of morals when deciding to use nuclear weapons: do what is best for the largest number of people. Others say he blatantly ignored Kant’s teachings regarding the morality of attacking non-combatants. Regardless, President Truman was faced with one of the most morally difficult decisions any
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
The ethical theory of utilitarianism has one basis, one must chose the action that will contribute to the greatest good; the greatest good for the greatest number. In any instance one may ask, which action will make the most people happy and how long? As a method
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
What is ethics? Ethics are the philosophical principles of good verses bad moral behavior. It is a guideline to help people make decisions or make a judgment calls. There are two main types of ethical principles that will be discussed in this paper, and how they are applied to the decision making process. They are Deontological and Utilitarian. Deontological ethics are based on the righteousness or wrongness of the action-taking place. It does not base itself on the bad or good consequences that come from the action. Immanuel Kant introduced deontological ethics in the 18th century. Kant believed that every decision or action made by a person had to be evaluated by his or her moral duty. He stated that humanity shouldn’t side on its
Utilitarianism tells us society should be ran on impartiality. Also, that in society justice cannot foreclose the sacrificing the innocent for the good of humanity. I believe in the film Gattaca the happiness or in other the words utility of utilitarianism, of the lives of those deemed invalid was sacrificed. Utilitarianism is also the basic idea that one person’s consciousness is as worthy of consideration as any others. The film Gattaca is about a world where your life is pre-determined by your D.N.A. I will further discuss how the main theme of the film Gattaca, genetic engineering’s role in society, is the root cause of natural fallacy within the new world Gattaca exhibits and does not cure the imperfect world. Then to conclude I will explain how for these same reasons genetic engineering’s use of utilitarian views is a contradiction of utilitarianism.
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.
As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which constitute variety of arguments in this essay to utilitarianism and specifically Mill answers these challenges in his work. These arguments can be determinated and analyzed as three crucial points that seriously challenges utilitarianism. The first issue can be entitled like that utilitarian idea sets too demanding conditions as to act by motive which always serves maximizing overall happiness. It creates single criterion about “being motived to maximize overall happiness” but moral rightness which are unattainable to pursue in case of the maximizing benefit principle challenges utilitarianism. Secondly, the idea which may related with the first argument but differs from the first idea about single criterion issue, utilitarianism demands people to consider and measuring everything which taking place around before people practice their actions. It leads criticism to utilitarianism since the approach sees human-beings as calculators to attain greatest happiness principle without considering cultural differ...
Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
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.
Utilitarianism is the view of considering everyone’s benefit as equally important versus only considering my own. For any action, the morally correct thing to do is cause the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure or benefit for the greatest number possible; while at the same time causing the least amount of pain or unhappiness for the smallest number possible.
A moral theory should be one’s guide when deciding whether an action is either good or bad, wrong or right. There are many types of moral theories to choose from, but we will only focus on two: utilitarianism and ancient hedonism. These theories meet in their pursuit of something greater, for hedonism it’s personal pleasure while for utilitarianism it is happiness for the greater number of people. In this work, the differences and the similarities of utilitarianism and hedonism will be pointed out after explaining them separately.