INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE
ASSIGNMENT II
016201300090
IR-1 / 2013
2013
I. System Theory – David Easton
System theory was first announced by David Easton, a Canadian political scientist in 1965. He is most well-known for his proposal of applying the theory in the world of political science. System theory basically explains about how the environment and social life as well give contribution and affect the political system around them, and the process goes on cyclically.
Firstly, there are demands or supports from the surrounding environment of the present time (demands of changes from people/citizens, for example: rise of salary, changes of policy, better welfare and public facilities). These demands are to be said by Easton as inputs, which then will be taken into account to the political system. Secondly, after going through considerations in political system, the received inputs leads the political system into making decisions and or actions, called as outputs given to the social environment (for example: new policy, new rules, new facilities). Thirdly, the ‘outputs’ are given to the environment and the political system lets them interact. If the outputs given resulting in some changes or improvement, it means there are outcomes. Lastly, after some time the environment interacts with the new outputs, there might be some more changes demanded to the outcomes (for example, the new policies/rules are too strict, the facilities needs better management). These new demands towards the outcomes are called feedbacks. Feedbacks will once again be taken into account by the political system, which we can consider as the new inputs - in other words it’s back to the first time, hence called a cyclical process.
For example...
... middle of paper ...
... utilitarianism could be done in a wrong way. For example, an act of stealing from the rich to give the benefits to the poor, will still be considered a good action. Even though the process could be considered as a crime, the purpose or result however, is to promote the happiness of the poor people; for what matters to utilitarianism is the results only, not the motives nor the methods – hence the questions arise about utilitarianism being unjust. However, according to Mill arguments regarding the protests, justice actually preserves peace among people, and that is the implementation of the definition of utilitarianism itself.
Utilitarianism theory can also be implemented in government nowadays in case of creating rules and policies and especially in making decisions, in means that the decisions made can bring out the best results which will actually benefit people.
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
The five systems are the Chronosystem, Macrosystem, Exosystem, Mesosystems, and the Microsystems. The Microsystem is the system closest to the person and the one in which they have direct contact. The Mesosystem is the interactions between the different parts of a person’s microsystem. The Exosystem is a setting that does not involve the person as an active participant, but still affects them. The Macrosystem is the cultural environment in which the person lives and all other systems that affect them. The Chronosystem is the dimension of time in relation to a person’s development and is my favorite system out of all of them because time is what’s affecting
...ry. Some may reject it and have the objection that utilitarianism does not provide an effective way of life. Those who object may say that this moral theory is not good or specific enough, lacks a mention of full human potential and capabilities, and fails to address the special moral values of humans. Mill provides an effective response to those who doubt utilitarianism, and states that there is only one end (happiness) that humans aim for and that humans and humans alone are the only ones who can judge and experience all pleasures and qualities of life.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
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...
In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.
The purpose of this paper is to explain how Utilitarianism supports Mill’s Liberty Principle. The Liberty Principle, or harm principle, simply states that the only way someone can stop another person from doing what they want, against their will, is if it will cause harm to others. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, is basically stating that the goal of an action or event is to make the most people the happiest. In reference to the greatest happiness principle, the opposite of happiness is not necessarily sadness but is simply referred to as the “opposite of happy;” and this is important to keep in mind when listening to the argument that I will present later on in the paper. I find that the following considerations:
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that approaches moral questions of right and wrong by considering the actual consequences of a variety of possible actions. These consequences are generally those that either positively or negatively affect other living beings. If there are both good and bad actual consequences of a particular action, the moral individual must weigh the good against the bad and go with the action that will produce the most good for the most amount of people. If the individual finds that there are only bad consequences, then she must go with the behavior that causes the least amount of bad consequences to the least amount of people. There are many different methods for calculating the utility of each moral decision and coming up with the best
Utilitarianism is a reality, not just a theory like many other philosophies; it is practiced every day, for instance the vote system. This ongoing practice of utilitarianism in society has show that it is flawed. Just because the masses vote for something, doesn’t make it right. The masses can be fooled, as in Nazi Germany for example, thousands of people were behind Hitler even though his actions were undeniably evil. Utilitarianism is a logical system, but it requires some sort of basic, firm rules to prevent such gross injustices, violations of human rights, and just obviously wrong thing ever being allowed. This could be the ‘harm principle’ which Mill devised.
Utilitarianism is a movement in ethics which began in the late eighteenth centaury and is primarily associated with the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham and was later adapted and fully developed by John Stuart Mill in the ninetieth century. . The theory states that we should try to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory of ethics. Teleological theories of ethics look at the consequences to decide whether an action is right or wrong. Utilitarianism is defined as a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of it consequences: specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible
Systems approach is based on the fundamental principle that all aspects of a human problem should be treated together in a rational manner (Healy, 2005). I have divided this essay into relevant sections that cover an overview of systems ideas, general systems theory and ecological systems theory. This assignment will also include Germain and Gittermans life model, and it will be related back to the case study that has been provided. Limitations of systems theory will also be discussed.
In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various courses of action that we could take, then determine any foreseeable benefits and harms to all affected by the ramifications of our decision. In fact, some of the early pioneers of utilitarianism, such as Bentham and Mill, campaigned for equality in terms of women's suffrage, decriminalization of homosexuality, and abolition of slavery (Boralevi, 1984). Utilitarianism seems to support democracy as one could interpret governments working to promote the public interest and welfare of citizens as striving for liberty for the greatest amount of people. While utilitarianism at its heart is a theory that calls for progressive social change through peaceful political processes, there are some difficulties in relying on it as the sole method for moral decision-making. In this essay I will assess the effectiveness of utilitarianism as a philosophy of government by examining the arguments against it.
Chaos Theory is a relatively new theory to the Social Work practice. This theory suggests that systems are constantly changing. As explained by Bussolari and Goodell (2009), Henri Ponicare tried to show that though systems are simple, they may produce unexpected behavior. One of the main concepts of the chaos theory is the butterfly effect. The butterfly effect simply sates that any small change “can greatly alter the emergent pattern” or result (Bussolari & Goodell, 2009). The origin of the butterfly effect is scientific. It comes from Edward Lorenz, a meteorologist who found that a slight decimal change in his calculations drastically changed his computer output (Bussolari & Goodell, 2009). For example, in the short story, “A Sound of Thunder” Ray Bradbury tells a story of a hunter named Eckels who travels back in time and inadvertently steps on a butterfly. When Eckles gets back to the future, he finds that things have changed drastically such as the results of a recent election (Bradbury, 1952). A seemingly minute change such as crushing a butterfly significantly altered the future.