Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ethics and happiness essay
Utilitarianism ethics
Utilitarianism ethical dilemmas
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ethics and happiness essay
One problem with the quoted definition is that it only mentions happiness. The issue is that it omits pain, suffering, and other negative experiences. This is sometimes called “positive utilitarianism”, and can be contrasted with “negative utilitarianism”, which is all about obtaining the least suffering for the least number.
Are either of these approaches an adequate version of the ethical theory? Should we be positive utilitarians or negative, or neither?
I think these are both absurd alternatives. The problem with each is that it neglects to consider the other. For example, negative utilitarianism demands that we minimize suffering (including pain, distress, and anything that is a negative thing to experience). But suffering is a part of
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that seeks to define right and wrong actions based solely on the consequences they produce. By utilitarian standards, an act is determined to be right if and only if it produces the greatest total amount of happiness for everyone. Happiness (or utility) is defined as the amount of pleasure less the amount of pain (Mill, 172). In order to act in accordance with utilitarianism, the agent must not only impartially attend to the pleasure of everyone, but they must also do so universally, meaning that everyone in the world is factored into the morality of the action.
One constant between all cultures is the understanding that all lives will come to an end. Throughout one’s lifetime, virtue, character, and morality are sought, through different ideals and methods, with the overall endgame being the most ethical and desirable outcome possible. There are times, however, when an individual may feel like there is no hope of reaching a successful existence; therefore the act of suicide becomes a viable option. The decision to voluntarily take one’s life has always been a topic of discussion on ethical grounds. Whether or not the decision to die is an ethical one can be argued depending on from which ethical theory the act is being evaluated.
Personally, I think that neither theory is entirely right or entirely wrong. The flaw I see in act utilitarianism is that if you are always doing everything you can in every situation imaginable to improve well-being of everyone, then you aren’t really living life, you’re simply doing a job every moment of your life. Even sleeping could somehow not benefit the well-being of everyone, if the better option is to stay awake and perform more well-being improving tasks. The flaw I see in rule consequentialism is that, in the world of radical Muslims, it is okay to commit suicide and murder, because that’s the accepted norm of their small society, even though it is due to their religious beliefs. That, to me, does not make it right. However, I would say as a general rule, rule consequentialism seems to satisfy my mind more than act utilitarianism.
The utilitarian ethics theory in a nutshell basically states that “the good is the well-being of all, impartially considered (Riley 68).” What is emphasized in utilitarian theory is that the greatest good be produced for the greatest number of people. This brings up the question of what “good” actually is. Many utilitarian theorists believe there are two kinds of good, intrinsic and instrumental. Intrinsic good is good considered just by itself while all other things are instruments for gaining the intrinsic goods (Schinzinger 55). Mill believes that the only intrinsic good is happiness and thus the emphasis can be rewritten as the greatest happiness produced for the greatest number of people. In other words, happiness is basically the only thing desirable as an end in itself. However, once again we ask the question of what happiness really is. When explaining his utilitarian theory, Mill separates happiness into two types, the higher and the lower (Mill Ch.2). Mill defines the higher happiness as being that of humans including such qualities as justice, creativity, morality and nobility. On the other hand, the lower happiness is that which is associated with animals and is purely pleasure based. Using these two types of happiness, Riley c...
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).
...ough its own capacity as a theory of both decision making and moral judgement, and by default- as act-utilitarianism has been proved too demanding and often immoral by our common sense intuition- I conclude that rule-utilitarianism is indeed preferable to act-utilitarianism.
“Utilitarianism is the creed which accepts as the foundations of morals utility of the greatest happiness principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mil, 90). Utilitarianism ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number meaning that the moral agent does what he/she thinks will be
Utilitarianism is the view of considering everyone’s benefit as equally important versus only considering my own. For any action, the morally correct thing to do is cause the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure or benefit for the greatest number possible; while at the same time causing the least amount of pain or unhappiness for the smallest number possible.
The main principle of utilitarianism is the greatest happiness principle. It states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure" (Mill, 1863, Ch. 2, p330). In other words, it results with the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people that are involved.
Utilitarianism can be defined as: the right action is the one that produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians seem to believe that humans only have two desires, or motivations: happiness and pain. They want as much happiness as possible and the least amount of pain as any other action. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that whether it is right, depends solely on its consequences.
In What Utilitarianism Is by Mill, we can see that society is very ambivalent about utilitarianism as a moral compass. “Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in the society os considered the greatest good.” In this theory anything that ends in happiness is considered as good and wring if it concludes in unhappiness. There is no moral ground rules when it comes to this ethical philosophy because overall happiness is the aim and not the actions that are taken to get there. Mill spends this chapter responding to the common criticism utilitarianism is faced with. Mill suggests that pleasure or happiness is the only criterion for deciding what is good and bad. He simply says that defines
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
A utilitarian approach to moral reasoning is also one where different options are weighed, although utilitarians are interested in minimising harm and maximising benefit. Importantly, utilitarians hold a universal perspective when reasoning, where they consider the impact upon all those who may be affected, who have interests of their own (Grace & Cohen 2013: 14-15).
The Utilitarian Approach: the ethical decision should provides the greatest good for the greatest number;
Utilitarianism is defined to be “the view that right actions are those that result in the most beneficial balance of good over bad consequences for everyone involved” (Vaughn 64). In other words, for a utilitarian,