Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of utilitarianism
Impact of utilitarianism
Impact of utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of utilitarianism
In my opinion, I agree with the deontological argument that “some acts, regardless of their consequences, are always wrong”. Although for me, both the people who perform an act and the consequences of an act, have the same relevance and importance for the world in general. Now, even bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary to stop the war, the utilitarian and ethical egoist arguments do not morally justified the act because they are not taking care of everyone, instead they are just thinking in their own benefits and interests. Utilitarians take care of the society in general, but they are capable of scarifying and killing people in order to achieve the overall good and organization. On the other hand, the ethical egoists just focus on
We have studied the two major theories that answer the question, “who should I be?”. These theories are egoism and altruism. In this paper, I will argue that the correct moral theory lies in-between the theories of egoism and altruism.
Utilitarianism cares more for the whole of society than the individuals that make it. This theory breeds the idea that death can be helpful for the whole. It could be in the forms of executions, murder, suicide, assisted suicide, etc. Peter Singer quotes in his article “Decisions about Death” John Stuart Mill’s bridge example: if you see someone crossing an unsafe bridge, you may stop them and warn them. If they continue anyway, you must step aside and let them cross.” The idea that people have free will, and use it to make decisions about themselves in their own best interest can go on to create a slippery-slope mentality - Because we executed one murderer, we can execute every murderer, no matter their reasoning!
According to deontology, people have an obligation that is imposed upon them by the duty to perform certain actions without due consideration on their consequential outcomes, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). This explains the instances where it is morally justified to perform a certain action whose pain is greater than the collective pleasures that can be derived from it, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). One of the major contributors to the deontological ethical theory is Emmanuel Kant. Deontologists include other ideologies that are inherently lacking among the consequentialist theories, particularly the utilitarianism. These aspects include the duty to act as well as a consideration of the intention to do what is right against what is wrong, (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2011). Deontological theorists argue that good intentions or good will is what informs the moral worth of an action and not just a consideration of the
Utilitarianism provides a foundation for creating and testing different ideas and it offers an objective way of solving conflicts of self-interest that you would get by using the egoism theory. By following the utilitarianism theory you recognize the groups that are involved and/or society in part of the decision making process to determine if something is ethically correct or not. Utilitarianism does not allow a person to put his/her interests or actions first, someone who follows the theory of utilitarianism thinks in the best interest of the minority of the group involved. The last one is it can easily resolve conflicts of
• Once more, the ordinary science’ proves itself as the master of classification, inventing and defining the various categories of Egoism. Per example, psychological egoism, which defines doctrine that an individual is always motivated by self-interest, then rational egoism which unquestionably advocates acting in self-interest. Ethical egoism as diametrically opposite of ethical altruism which obliges a moral agent to assist the other first, even if sacrifices own interest. Also, ethical egoism differs from both rational and psychological egoism in ‘defending’ doctrine which considers all actions with contributive beneficial effects for an acting individual
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.
Another way to interpret utilitarianism is to have the positives of the outcome outweigh the negatives. In that sense, it is the ends of the act that justify the means and not the intent of the act itself. When President Truman made the decision to drop nuclear warheads on Japan, he did so with the intention that he would be saving more lives in the long run than if the current style of warfighting were to continue. Therefore, supporters of President Truman’s decision to deploy the atomic bombs during the Second World War defend his utilitarian
I will begin by looking at the first claim that states that the consequential nature of utilitarianism is inappropriate. According to this argument, actions are judged according to the resulting consequences on the individual who undertook the actions without considering who motivated the actions. I will argue that this claim is wrong. This is because if the actions are morally up right, they will also produce the best consequences compared to any other actions. In my opinion utilitarianism is effective in shaping the behavioral character of the society as maximization of the good actions as well as minimization of evil deeds is
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.
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.
Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up.
A historical example of utilitarianism is when United States President Harry S. Truman ordered the second atomic bomb to drop on Japan in August, 1945. Although the first atomic bomb dropped three days prior on Hiroshima, Japan, killing over 70,000 people, the Japanese still did not abdicate in the war with America. “In late July, Japan’s militarist government rejected the Allied demand for surrender put forth in the Potsdam Declaration, which threatened the Japanese with ‘prompt and utter destruction’ if they refused” (History.com staff). With no response from Japan, President Truman ordered the dropping of the first “…atomic bomb in the hopes of bringing the war to a quick end” (History.com staff). Therefore, three days after the first atomic
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism and a theory in normative ethics. According to utilitarianism, this is a theory that it is concerned on whether an action will result the greatest amount of pleasure (happiness) for the greater number of individuals (Shafer-Landau, 2014, p.138). In order to address the scenario given, the terminology of the two forms of utilitarianism (act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism) and deontology need to be understood so it can be applied on how and why each type will act in this specific scenario.
...on the other hand, seeks to promote happiness as an end in itself. Reasonable and moderate versions of both theories really warrant the same action in most cases; for example, giving to charity and avoiding unfairly produced goods. The differences in suggested action only emerge in a few unique situations; the real distinction is in the underlying beliefs supporting the two theories. Deontology promotes a fair opportunity at happiness and self-advocacy, whereas Utilitarianism’s objective is the promotion of happiness. While happiness is indeed a great thing, I worry that by only looking at the result of an action Utilitarian actions could far too easily infringe upon one’s right to self-determination. I prefer Deontology for this reason and for its objective of respecting human autonomy and mandate to treat humanity always as an end and not as a simple means.
Utilitarianism can be described as an ethical theory that states if the consequences of an action