Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Shortcomings of utilitarianism
Shortcomings of utilitarianism
Shortcomings of utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Shortcomings of utilitarianism
Utilitarianism: Why the Pursuit of Happiness Leads - Ultimately - Only to Despair and Injustice RSSDAN010 Note that this essay maintains that to seek to act immorally is irrational. To attempt at least to act morally if given the option is rational. It is also irrational for justice to be arbitrary. The ancient maxim “do unto others as you’d have them do to you” has been used in households globally to encourage healthy moral foundation in the hearts of children. Philosophers like Kant would argue that the acceptance of this maxim leads to ultimate moral thought. However, what state does this maxim aim for? How can one describe or visualise utopia? Bentham would hold that the answer to both these questions is simple: happiness. Moral action, according to Bentham and his acolytes, should be aimed at maximising happiness in the world. While this sounds, …show more content…
That is, it aims to model ethics and ethical code that is less dynamic. Rule utilitarianism provides a set of rules that are utility maximising and moral action is any that does not conflict or go against these rules. This form of utilitarianism is not utilitarianism at all. What rule can be conceived where there cannot be a scenario also conceived which would result in a contrary action maximising utility more than following the rule? The Rule Utilitarian has three options when faced with this objection of hypocrisy: Firstly, to revert to classical utilitarianism (which as previously mentioned is self-defeating). Secondly, to base moral action on something greater than utility (defeating the purpose of the argument at all). Thirdly, to find an unfalsifiable example to use as justification of the argument (a wholly unpersuasive form of argument which should discount the argument put
Jeremy Bentham, one of the founders of Utilitarianism, believed his philosophy could provide for the “greatest happiness of the greatest number of people”. However benign it may sound, at the heart of Utilitarianism is a cold, teleological process which reduces happiness to a mere commodity. It is even worse that Saul Alinsky would extend this philosophy to a point where the truth becomes relative, justice becomes a tool of those powerful enough to wield it, and any means are justified to reach one’s desired ends.
Nineteenth century British philosophers, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill sum up their theory of Utilitarianism, or the “principle of utility,” which is defined as, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Munson, 2012, p. 863). This theory’s main focus is to observe the consequences of an action(s), rather than the action itself. The utility, or usef...
ABSTRACT: In light of interpreting a paradox of irrationality, vaguely expressed by Donald Davidson in the context of explaining weakness of will, I attempt to show that it contains a significant thesis regarding the cognitive as well as motivational basis of our normative practice. First, an irrational act must involve both a rational element and a non-rational element at its core. Second, irrationality entails free and intentional violation of fundamental norms which the agent deems right or necessary. Third, "normative interpretation" is only possible for objects that are both natural events and capable of mental operations which presuppose some freedom of will as well as constructive representation of the surrounding reality. Fourth, there is always a question of whether we strike the best balance between fitting individual mental items consistently with the overall behavior pattern and keeping our critical ability in following certain normative principles which constitute our rational background. Fifth, the paradox of irrationality reflects and polarizes a deep-seated tension in the normative human practice under the ultimate constraints of nature. Finally, the ultimate issue is how we can find the best lines on which our normative rational standards are based-"best" in the sense that they are close enough to limits of human practical potentialities and are not too high as to render our normative standards idle or even disastrous.
Humanity is taught to be moral, to do good and avoid evil. However those lessons become foolish when we ask what is morality, the thing that we are told to achieve. For many morality is doing what is good and doing good is moral. This roundabout answer may be satisfactory to some that only look at the surface of the issue, however once the digging begins the grad question of morality comes into question. While this question has been looked an infinite number of times without being universally solved certain patterns have been made in the conclusions great thinkers and scholars come to regarding morality. One of these particular ideas involves a rationalist perspective that rationality defines morality or that moral failings imply rational failings. This concept is supported by Shafer-Landau and Korsgaard while thinkers like Williams and Foot disagree with such a claim. It should be understood that morality and rationality are intertwined were a moral failing correlates with a rational failing.
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...
The theory considered pleasure and happiness to be the greatest good. The form of utility that Bentham believed in was Act Utilitarianism. He believed that each action should be judged by its ability to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number. As well as this it moves from specific cases to general principles that should be followed.
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...
...absent in the utilitarian standpoint. Ergo, rule- utilitarianism does not allow for an individual's freewill because it tells one to examine others rules, or beliefs and not one's own. Thereby conforming to sociality.
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...
As human beings, we often have desires that are not always consistent with yielding the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarianism would argue that putting one’s own desires first and pursuing one’s own interests is wrong and immoral behavior. While some moral theories acknowledge that pursuing one’s own interests can be morally optional, in Utilitarianism, it is always forbidden (Moral Theory, p. 135). This makes the theory overly demanding because one is constantly forced to consider others. Utilitarians can respond to this objection by challenging the claim that pursuing one’s own desires cannot ever be consistent with the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Certainly there can be times when pursuing one’s own desires is also consistent with producing the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Utilitarians might also point out that moral theories are meant to be demanding because they are teaching individuals how to act morally and acting morally is not always the desirable course of
Jeremy Bentham is widely regarded as the father of utilitarianism. He was born in 1748 into a family of lawyers and was himself, training to join the profession. During this process however, he became disillusioned by the state British law was in and set out to reform the system into a perfect one based on the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle,’ ‘the idea that pleasurable consequences are what qualify an action as being morally good’. Bentham observed that we are all governed by pain and pleasure; we all naturally aim to seek pleasure and avoid pain. He then decided that the best moral principle for governing our lives is one which uses this, the ‘Greatest Happiness Principle.’ This is that the amount of overall happiness or unhappiness that is caused by an action should determine whether an action is right or wrong. He stated,
A disadvantage of utilitarianism is that it fails to acknowledge the rights of each person, thus advocating injustice acts. People can suffer from immediate consequences of an action fulfilled by being “utilitarian”. Utilitarianism ignores the importance of moral obligation. It is still our duty to decide upon a wrong or right act and not take in consideration the amount of good or evil it produces. Lastly, moral dilemmas only happen because either quality or quantity of “good” or “pleasure” is in doubt. A person deciding whether to do a moral act has to take in consideration the maximization of happiness and pleasure to the
Highest principle of morality that Jeremy Bentham thought was the maximization of happiness. In other words, according to Bentham, to maximize joy and happiness(also called utility) is the only criterion of right action. He suggested several policies that reflect his thoughts, and the following is an example of them.
The theory of Utilitarianism of morality is concerned with the happiness of the general population. The three fundamental principles of Utilitarianism begin with the judgment of actions based on the consequences produced. Secondly, when evaluating the consequences of these actions, one must measure the amount of happiness or unhappiness it produces. Lastly, the happiness of all those affected must be taken into account (Rachels, p.102). Rachels’ explains, “right actions as those that produce the greatest possible balance of happiness over unhappiness, with each person’s happiness counted as equally important” (Rachels, p. 102). Mills states, “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.”(Rachels, p. 102) In summary, morally right actions are those that promote the happiness of all ...
A rule utilitarian would probably be interested in thinking along the lines of: a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and a moral rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible rules. So we should judge the morality of individual actions by referring to general moral rules, and we should judge particular moral rules by seeing whether their acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-being than other possible rules.