Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
First categorical imperative
Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Kantian ethics and utilitarianism
The ethical issues involved in the case are: categorical imperative, utilitarianism on the behalf of all aspects of the evidence presented. Categorically two people decided to do the duty of killing one person so the other three would be able to survive until rescued (IEP). The utilitarianism would be that 3 of the four had friends and family that would miss them if they would have not survived (Lee, 2000). Mill’s philosophy of utilitarianism would be considered the happiness or whatever prevents pain or sufferings. In the case, his views would have been that the murdering of one person to satisfy the suffering of three others from starvation would be better than all four of the survivors suffering from hunger and no water. It does not take into effect that Parker had not say or consent of the situation and that Parker did not cause …show more content…
The morality of this would not be the means of happiness, but rather regard people as an end, and never as a means to an end. In the case. In the case categorical imperative, it would be that to end a persons’ life is not the proper way to handle the situation, since murder is never correct to the means of an end. My position on the case would be for the prosecution of the case. Dudley and Stephens used utilitarianism so that the remaining three survivors would not be suffering from hunger. The morals that they were thinking at the time would be the weakest member should die for the others to survive. The talk amongst the three was that they had loved ones back home and the orphan did not. The morality of murder a good cause for the suffering of others to be happy, pain-free or not suffering correctly? No, it is not a good cause for the issue. Dudley and Stephens were in agreement with the situation, but Brooks was not in agreeance with the situation. Parker was not even consulted about the discussion of how the four would be
"Ethical utilitarianism can most generally be described as the principle that states that the rightness or wrongness of action is determined by the goodness and badness of their consequences." (Utilitarianism EOP 9: 603.) Following this guide line the morally right decision to make is to rescue the group with five ...
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
...f it is unrecognizable to the eye. The standard that he is referring to is the principle of utility, which is also referred to as the “greatest happiness principle.” Mill makes it clear that utilitarianism has had great impact in shaping a moral basis of principles.
There were some moral problems that Mill ran into with his principle. One of the first problems was that actions are right to promote happiness, but wrong as they sometimes tend to produce unhappiness. By moving a victim from a mangled car would be the noble thing to do but what if pulling him from the wreck meant killing him. He intended to produce a happy outcome, but in the end he created an unhappy situation. Utilitarianism declares that men can live just as well without happiness. Mill says yes, but men do not conduct their lives, always seeking happiness. Happiness does not always mean total bliss.
Mill's moral theory is not accurately described. It remains recognizably utilitarian. According to Skorupski, he believes that the “mental, moral, and aesthetic stature”4 is capable for human nature, according to Mill. Utility has a place when Mill states that the greatest of interests is not normally classed “under the head of interest.” 5
For Mill, the freedom that enables each individual to explore his or her own particular way of life is essential for a generous and diverse development of humanity. The only source of potential within society to further continue human development is the spontaneity or creativity that lies within each individual. Mill has a utilitarian view on freedom. He was especially keen on individual liberty because it allowed the greatest measure of happiness. His concern is not to declare liberty as a natural right but to rather set out the appropriate constraints within ‘Civil or Social liberty’. Civil liberty is defined as the limit society can exert its legitimate power over each individual and social liberty has much to do with a political principle
The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch
Utilitarianism’s purpose, according to Mill, is to make what the individual subconsciously desires and make that desire a reality. If an individual doesn’t know what options he or she has, they don’t have the capacity to make the best decision. Mill emphasizes this by relating happiness to the visibility of an object. If an object isn’t visible, then to most, the object doesn’t exist, as is the same with happiness. Mill’s argument sheds light on the individual more so than the group in his interpretation of Utilitarianism. As I stated previously, Mill doesn’t quantify his interpretation of Utilitarianism. Instead, concepts such as morality, are based internally as opposed to externally. Everyone has the potential to decide for themselves whether their actions are moral or not. Through doing this, Mill addressed most of the criticisms toward Utilitarianism. However, Kant’s Categorical Imperative acts more as a decision rule for action instead of universal
This was, however, not the only factor to be looked after. What options they had does not dictate the morality of an act, it is only one part of a larger whole. Law is, in itself, morality, by nature of the fact that to defy law results in chaos. Originally the law was created to serve as a means of carrying out Justice, but the sheer nature of the fact that it has since, as in this case, acted in some way other than to uphold such a concept proves that it is a separate entity unto itself. Rather than considering the morality of a decision in the administering of Justice, it is now reasonable and required to consider the law as a factor in determining the morality of a decision. When the virtue of the decision is determined, then can Justice, and thus punishment, be considered. It is important to understand this concept: law is no longer a means of carry...
In On Liberty by John Stuart Mills, he presents four arguments regarding freedom of expression. According to Mills, we should encourage free speech and discussion, even though it may oppose a belief you deem to be true. Essentially, when you open up to other opinions, Mills believes you will end up closer to the truth. Instead of just accepting something as true because you are told, Mills argues that accepting both sides will make you understand why your side is true or false. Mills is persuasive in all four of his claims because as history would show, accepting both sides of an argument is how society improves.
Mill understands the Utilitarian principle to the full of it 's extent, he also understands why a person would disregard the theory, and there goes on to unravel the seemingly missing puzzle pieces to connect the theory completely, and correctly. His argurment reflects that of his own thoughts and opinions on the philosophy of the overall good of the population, concerning what is considered good by the measurement of happiness and pleasure. This in turn is where the second term for Utilitarianims comes from, as it is call the Greatest Happiness Principle. In his text, Mr. Mill states that this principle "holds that actiosn are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (96). Following this idea, he explains that happiness holds the absence of pain and the reverse of that, there holds the "privation of pleasure" (Mill 96). John Mill says that this is exactly what happiness and pleasure consist of. What is considered controversial on this particular theory is the simplicty of the definind words. The greatest happiness principle concerns happiness and pleasure, to the simple or closed minded this sounds degrading to humans or anyone who believes in it. John Mill argues for this principle and against the simple minded people that would judge the Epicureans for practicing
Referring to the lecture, Mill’s Utilitarianism states that when deciding what to do, one should consider the greatest good for greatest number. This means that someone should not just make a choice based off the happiness of the majority. The majority would have said to not take the photo and to help the
In any situation as atrocious as this, the correct line of moral action is not always clear. However, in considering both emotion and reason, it is possible to reach a moral decision. Sometimes when we are put in situations against our will our intuition is torn and making the right decision can be difficult. The only thing we can do in these situations is turn introspectively to our feelings and reason, and understand that we are only human.
An individual does not make a community, and a community does not make a society. In order to have a functioning and prosperous society, one must relinquish some free will in return for protection. According to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, there are certain rights of the individual which the government may never possess. Centuries after the publication of Mill’s Essay, the court case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegeta l , 546 U.S. 418 (2006) challenged the protective role of government against the free exercise of religion. In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society.
Mill’s critics would likely say that Utilitarianism as a whole can function to create selfish people because all are striving towards a life of more pleasure than pain, but Mill shuts this down with the idea of happiness being impartial. Basically, a person must choose an action that yields the most happiness or pleasure, whether that pleasure is for them or not. Mill would recognize that, “Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest” (Wilson). By this, it is meant that although people are supposed to take action that will produce the greatest pleasure, the do not do so in a purely selfish manner. Mill goes on to argue that the happiness of individuals is interconnected; therefore one cannot be selfish in such a way. Along with the criticism of Utilitarianism and the principle of utility being selfish, many argue that such a doctrine promotes expediency in order to benefit the person conducting the action alone. I would disagree with these criticisms, and find Mill’s argument valid. His argument counters