There are many views on ethical theory, everyone has a different opinion on what is ethical and what is moral in others’ lives. Two main examples of ethical theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. Utilitarianism is why our actions should promote the greater good of all. Kantianism is why we should look at our intentions of the particular actions we take. Immanuel Kant came up with his own ideas when working with ethical theory, Kantianism. These 2 theories are very different from each other. They both try to understand what is best for people. Kantianism was known as a critique of utilitarianism. Instead of thinking only about the end result, you should not use others as a means to an end. There are many contrast between utilitarianism …show more content…
154). There are many sub divisions of utilitarianisms, act and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is the simplest form, it determines the right choice that will have the best consequences for the welfare of everyone. Rule utilitarianism follows the same moral code that is used that would be best for your society. Hedonism idea is to view our actions to make sure we are promoting happiness not just for ourselves but also the people around us. The actions we take should be for whatever will work best to benefit everyone in the long run, just for the moment. “During one of Joshua Greene debates after he learned about utilitarianism argument of making our actions be used to benefit the well-being of others. In the debate, the opponent was arguing the value of free speech, Greene asked if free speech was an important value is the debates and there for has no other values that can precedence over free speech, with the opponent answering yes. Greene’s argument concluded with if someone in a crowded theater decided it would be fun to shout “Fire”, which ended up causing people to rush to the exit of the movie theater and for few to be trampled and die” (Greene, 2013, pg. 108). Was having the right of free speech to shout fire outweigh the right of being trampled to death in the chaos of the theater. The utilitarian …show more content…
You are standing on a bridge over the rail way tracks, you see a trolley coming and on the other side there are five people who are stuck the track. If no action is taken those five people will be killed by the oncoming trolley. On the bridge with you there is another man who is wearing a backpack, if he were to jump in front of the trolley then the five people will be saved. He is not willing to jump and you cannot stop the train by jumping because you do not have the backpack on. You could push the man off the bridge to save the five people, which would cause the man to die or do nothing and have the 5 people die on the tracks (Greene, 2013, pg. 114). This is a very personal example of choosing the Kantianism view or the utilitarianism view. Kantian view is to not push the man off the bridge because you are using him as a mere means. If he is not willing to jump to save the five people then you are not allowed to do anything. The utilitarian side is to push the man off the bridge. Using the man to stop the trolley will be best for the greater good by saving five other people. Because this is such a personal decision of choosing whether or not to push the man off the bridge, many people see this as morally wrong and would choose to not use the man as a mere
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
Act-utilitarianism is a direct form of consequentialism in that its principles are applied directly to ones actions under particular circumstances and the action is then judged as morally permissible or impermissible based solely on whether your action achieved or failed to maximise pleasure. In contrast, rule-utilitarianism is considered indirect because your actions are carried out according to a set of accepted moral rules of which compliance with which would ensure maximum aggregate good. Whether an action is morally permissible or impermissible is judged on your adherence to the agreed set of moral rules as opposed to the direct outcome of your actions. It would seem already that rule-utilitaria...
My question stems from the “The trolley problem” which gives a person the imaginary option of pulling a lever to save five people from an oncoming trolley and killing one person or letting the trolley go and kill the five people saving, that one other person. Another way this dilemma is set up is: say you were walking on a bridge with a fat man and you saw that a trolley was coming below you and was about to hit five people but, you knew if you pushed this fat man off the bridge to block the trolley then you could save the five people at the expense of the fat
As a deontological, or duty-based, theory, Kantianism is focus on intent. If the intent behind an action is morally praiseworthy and fits into the categorical imperative, it must be ethical. The categorical imperative is the main element in Kantianism, and it states that you must act as if it was universal law. This is similar to the Golden Rule of “treat others how you wish to be treated” and is a way to determine whether an act is morally praiseworthy. Kantian ethics are different from utilitarianism in that happiness is not a
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.
In Utilitarianism the aim of our actions is to achieve happiness for the greatest number of people. “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 1971). Utilitarianism directly appeals to human emotions and our reactions to different events. Emotions are a fundamental Way of Knowing and influence both ethical and economical theories. In most cultures there are fundame...
Mill, J. S., Bentham, J., & Ryan, A. (1987). Utilitarianism and other essays. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
In Thomson’s Bystander Two Options case the ethical question of killing versus letting die is at debate. From previous studies it has been found that the popular opinion agrees that it is ethically acceptable to let someone die but not acceptable to kill someone. In Thomson’s case the bystander must choose the action of killing one innocent person which my seem “right” or letting five innocent people die. In the case there happens to be a random bystander on the trolley track right at the switch that can change the course of the trolley at any moment. If the bystander turns the switch to the right one workman will die but the bystander would be saving five workmen straight ahead on the track.
Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
The difference between the two comes to Kantian theory doesn 't account for the consequences and rule utilitarianism does. For Kant, it doesn 't matter what happens as a result of your will and duty as the law as it doesn 't compromise the sovereignty of other rational beings. The rule utilitarianism main goal is to maximize collective human happiness and welfare, and unlike Kant, how believes that one should under no circumstance breaks, your own Maxim thus severing the like between Duty and Will. Rule utilitarianism allows more flexibility in people 's actions and behaviors
Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a
According to the theory of consequentialism, “an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results” (Landau, 2015, p.121). In this view, an individual’s action is deemed moral only if it produces the optimific result in any situation. In the article “Framing Effect in the Trolley Problem and Footbridge Dilemma,” the authors introduced the “Footbridge Dilemma”, wherein an individual is given the option to save the lives of five workers by pushing an innocent man towards an incoming trolley (Cao, et. al, 2017, p. 90). In this dilemma, consequentialism suggests that it is moral to push the innocent man and save the workers. Even though pushing the man would kill him, the action would yield the optimific outcome in that
This problem presents the following situation: A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workers who will all be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. You are standing next to a large switch that can divert the trolley onto a different track. The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto another track that only has one worker on it. If you divert the trolley onto the other track, this one worker will die, but the other five workers will be saved.
Although both an act-utilitarian and a rule-utilitarian, both defend the utilitarianism main claim of us doing “what is optimific. [Meaning] we must maximize overall well-being,” (FE, 138). The main claim of each form is different.
Utilitarian’s judge the ethics of the situation based on the outcome. Kant believes that “good will has nothing to do with the outcome” (Garner PowerPoint). In the case of comparing these two views a simple example will be used: a lie to save a life.