When applying utilitarianism, one must choose the action that produces the most amount of good to society, which in this case, Mill would not be in favor of the app Haystack. By discontinuing this app, the urban community as a whole would benefit since there are inequalities among the socioeconomic status’ of the people living in the densely populated cities. While some drivers are willing to pay for a spot each day, such as the upper or upper-middle class, others such as the lower or lower-middle classes might not be able to. Utilitarianism is concerned about the happiness of everyone. In regards to the concept of paying for parking spots, the poor and even the lower-middle will not be happy spending money each day for something that is traditionally …show more content…
Humans are unique in the way that they can use reason. As a human, there is the choice to use practical reason and have freedom because people have unconditional worth. Kant would say that Haystack is treating people as means, rather than ends because it is taking away their freedom by making them pay for spots. One could argue and say Eric is concerned about the environment because he said, “His dream is to reduce congestion, cut greenhouse gases, make urban life easier and make some money”, but that is not fully the case because when an alternate idea of having karma points rather than money was proposed, he turned down the idea. Kant would say Eric was using people as means rather than ends to make money through the buying and selling of spots. From examining this particular case through the deontological perspective, it can be said that Eric was acting merely in accordance with duty rather than acting from duty. He had an ulterior motive of making money and being able to find parking spots more easily, rather than considering the consequences it would have on the people that are unable to afford to pay for parking each
...l sources of utility or consequences, but about his moral identity and integrity. Jim is presented with a situation that challenges to who he is, and not just simply what he should do. Granted, is tricky to decide on the “right” action in this case because by not partaking in the deal, Jim is staying true to his personal moral beliefs; yet he is still left with the burden of knowing that all twenty of the Indians would be killed without his interference. One could also argue that Jim would only be contributing to the problem if he too committed such acts against these innocent people and it is his duty as a moral being to not partake. It seems that Kant’s theory passes the standard of internal support and explanatory power. This is because his principles are able to fit with considered moral beliefs and are able to help individuals identify a right and wrong action.
In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).
In general, the term utilitarianism can be defined as the ethical or right action is the one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number. Therefore, some people suggest that rightness or wrongness is determine by numbers that are total the positives and the negatives outcome of an action or the one that produces the highest score of positives or negatives that is the most ethical, or right, thing to do (Neher, W. W. Sandin, P.J., 2007, p. 61).
From walking out of your local grocery store back to your car, after buying as much food as your last paycheck can purchase, a beggar stops you. They are wearing the most ragged clothes you have ever seen and you doubt they provide any sort of warmth in the harsh February weather in New England. They ask, “Do you have any spare change?” knowing that you just bought some items and potentially paid with cash and received coins in return or just happen to have literal spare change. You fumble with your words attempting to come up with a reasonable response; how could you even respond to them? On one hand, a Kantian would respond with the truth, “Of course!”, while a Utilitarian would respond with a quick, “Nope, sorry,”.
After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial.
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...
Act-utilitarianism is a theory suggesting that actions are right if their utility or product is at least as great as anything else that could be done in the situation or circumstance. Despite Mill's conviction that act-utilitarianism is an acceptable and satisfying moral theory there are recognized problems. The main objection to act-utilitarianism is that it seems to be too permissive, capable of justifying any crime, and even making it morally obligatory to do so. This theory gives rise to the i...
Many traditions and values of the American society are beneficial, but some are harmful. Acceptance of utilitarianism will preserve beneficial traditions while replacing the harmful ones. As a result, new traditions, grounded in reason, will emerge, and future generations may wonder how the irrational and unnatural non-utilitarian values had survived for so long.
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...
Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...
Holmes offers three criticisms of utilitarianism. How is one going to achieve it so that it does benefit the highest number of people? How do you decide how to distribute the benefits in the best possible way? I agree that it would be very hard to decide the best way to distribute the benefits equally. How would a person decide if you do it over time or all at once? Utilitarianism sounds like a good way to live, as there are times it is necessary to safe the individuals t...
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.
Deontological ethical theory focuses on duty. It is viewed that humans have a duty in doing what is ethically right in any given situation. However, the categorical imperative does not have the same ideas it does not consist of duties to us. As Kant indicates in the idea of the Kingdom of Ends that our duty lies in treating all human beings as ends in and of them instead of as a means to an end it is perceived as being an extension of us. It is based on the desires of a person on how they want to be treated and will succeed as long as the universal good is applied as well. In other words, our actions and behaviors applied in our lives, we can see others imitating. For instance, can we see a world where everyone lied willingly? It does not make sense it would defeat the purpose of being able to identify the truth there would be no meaning. The ethical duty is to be truthful.
...e consequences, as a utilitarian would. While Liang 's decision was immoral, he never treated anyone as simply “mere means.” One could argue that the people who bought the affected vehicles were used as “mere means” to an end. From Liang’s decision, those customers are part of the consequence, so they are not considered. However, the company Volkswagen as a whole did use the customers as a “mere means” to an end as they assumed that a simple cash settlement would have been enough to make up for the customers’ disappointment. From Kant’s moral theory, Liang’s decision to create the illegal software to cheat the EPA emission tests was morally wrong, even if it was due to necessity. While it can be argued that it is also morally wrong from a utilitarian’s point of view, it is important to realize that both theories reached the same conclusion through different processes.