Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarianism criticisms
Importance of Ethics
Pro life vs pro choice arguments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarianism criticisms
Applying Utilitarianism There are many cases where a person can think that by doing something good; it will help people, but they do not realize in the process of doing this what the outcomes could it be. Neher and Sandin (2007) mentioned that the ethical or right action is the one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number. Rightness or wrongness is determined by the totaling the positive and negative outcomes of an action, and the one that produces the highest score of positives over negatives is the most ethical, or right thing, to do (p. 60). For instance, the presidential election is an excellent example of how candidates promise things to help people. For example, when they promised to people that they are going to create
When there is a dilemma that affects a group of people, actions by the right people can be
In this scenario, Jim’s morally thinking does follow the act utilitarianism theory. Jim weighs his options, of whom he should consider for the job. Jim is using the consequentialism formula to try and figure out what will be the best solution that he can live with morally. But does Jim practice all of the theories that go along with act utilitarianism? Just like in the case Jim believes that he should be acting impartially. Therefore, he is dismissing one of the most important part of the act utilitarian theory. Let’s first examine the formula for consequentialism and see if Jim has followed all of the steps.
One constant between all cultures is the understanding that all lives will come to an end. Throughout one’s lifetime, virtue, character, and morality are sought, through different ideals and methods, with the overall endgame being the most ethical and desirable outcome possible. There are times, however, when an individual may feel like there is no hope of reaching a successful existence; therefore the act of suicide becomes a viable option. The decision to voluntarily take one’s life has always been a topic of discussion on ethical grounds. Whether or not the decision to die is an ethical one can be argued depending on from which ethical theory the act is being evaluated.
According to consequentialist theory, a right action is one that maximizes the good. Utility, or the greatest happiness principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” The greatest happiness principle also holds that the right action increases total amount of utility in the world: “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in conduct, is not the agent 's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 5). The principle of Utility states that “…happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain…” (Mill 2). An action is right if it maximizes the good, that being happiness, as it is the only thing that is
Morality can be separated into many entities, one of which being one’s willingness to personally sacrifice for someone else. One’s own mind may factor into one’s decision when put in a difficult situation, a situation as extreme as putting your own well-being on the line for someone else’s. Many people, when asked if they would help others at nearly any cost, would automatically answer yes; however, when faced with this type of hardship, one, more often than not, does what is in their self-interest. That, however, does not define whether one should help others or not. One is morally obligated to sacrifice their well-being for the benefit of another’s.
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
RESEARCH QUESTION: To what extent is it rational to have if action alone will not make a huge ölçüt ölçüt rtance of even the smallest amount of donation. It would not not be unfair to argue one person giving a tuppence will make a small difference, if it will have any effect at all. This makes one wonder if one is morally free from acting in a moral way if one’s actions will have negligible impact. This kind of thinking is not only popular but it is also seen in many branches of contemporary life; from economics to voting in elections. Is one ought to pay taxes, or vote, for instance — if their individual contribution gets lost in the crowd. This problem is commonly referred to as the free rider problem; meaning, free riding on decent actions of others. This paper will argue that although free riding is being rational in his actions, his actions lack moral grounds, and therefore should be persuaded to act against his moral ideas.
Examining the case with the Utilitarian mindset, we consider the overall positivity of the action vs the positivity of the alternative. In this case, what is the measure
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.
Should this dilemma arise, whether or not the promise is kept must depend upon the particular circumstances of the case. Choosing not to keep a promise in such a situation would be not a demonstration of the promiser's inability to keep his word, but a clear indication of his quite proper awareness that, in deciding what course to take, the promiser has quite properly concluded that the interest of others must be placed before his own. This situation is philosophically interesting in two immediately apparent ways: firstly, because of the questions which it raises concerning the ways in which a present or future obligation might be argued to exist in relation to a promise given in the past; secondly, because it is possible to imagine a society in which the concept of keeping promises does not exist, so that the notion of individuals ever placing the interests of others before their own would simply not arise.... ... middle of paper ... ..."
The value of human kind is obliterated, and personal financial interest is serving as a replacement. As described in “The Wrong Way to Get People to Do the Right Thing”, people act on the basis of incentives and opportunity costs rather than their own intuition. The idea of acting based on kindness of heart and charity in todays society often seems to be very foreign. As a reader, Kohn persuaded me to believe that rewards make people less helpful. Through the use of situational irony, facts and statistics, and appealing to the readers sense of sorrow; Kohn persuaded me to believe that rewards destroy the purpose in which people act.
In our life, people always face making choices, no matter what kind of choices they make, which are going to influence themselves and others. As we all know, the choice is good or bad, it will give people a good or bad influence. However, everything is relative, including the choice. Standing in a different perspective to look at the problem, there will be different ideas, so that cannot determine which is right, or which is wrong, all depends on the way people look at the issue. However, people's character will determine the people's choice.
However, choosing sides is more easily said than done since positive and negative consequences arise regardless of what value is chosen to pursue. Most likely, the path chosen will determine whether or not the good life is reached. Will achieving desired goals be a result of taking immediate action, or carefully contemplating an issue? Specific instances that demonstrates the conflict between choosing to act directly or to contemplate are portrayed in Martin Luther King’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail and Fletcher’s take on Luna the Killer Whale. After a careful evaluation of the two aforementioned pieces, I concluded that the path to the good life is not concrete, nor written in a handbook for one to precisely follow.
One of the most controversial in politics can be surmised in a single inquiry, “do the desired ends justify the means used to achieve them?” As humans, imperfect creations that have greed within their nature, quite often humankind becomes too caught up in personal goals to stop and consider the consequences of actually reaching such goals. Does the value of the goal outweigh the resources used to meet that goal?