Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Utilitarian theory of property rights
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Utilitarian theory of property rights
Jennifer O'Brien
Theories of Property
Response Paper Meeting 3
Utilitarian theory of property whole persuasive and relevant, leaves many unanswered questions and seems to address only one side of maximizing the utility of property. The idea behind the utilitarian property theory that property should be owned to maximize utility is an idea that a rational person would have a difficult time to disagree with. In society today, where there is a strong sense of moral justice and the immoral actors are condemned, the idea that property is owned privately because it is the most efficient for all seems to fit into stereotypical thinking. In a way, this theory also allows people to feel good about themselves when property longer available to the commons because it can be seen as in the best interest of society. Indeed, this theory is highly relevant because we can see it evidenced in actions by the American government today. In eminent domain,
…show more content…
If people are going to use their property to drain scarce resources and not use the property to its potential and the costs of this internalization are high, why is there not a mechanism in this property theory to take property away if a person is abusing this? If a person is abusing their child or their pet, we do not hesitate to take the child or animal away, so if we belief that property should be used to its great utility why cannot this be used to justify taking land away. If utilitarians truly believe that land should be used to its greatest utility it should be taken and given back to the commons and regulated from there when utility calls for it. So if the government can exercise eminent domain for public benefit, is not saving resources and utility in the public interest and therefore people should be forced to forfeit property that utility declares would be better in the hands of the
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...
...onstitute injustice. Nosick favors a state in which the dominant protection agency as the only form of "government" serves to protect those who chose to freely participate in the service. The individual is free to go about his life so long as he does not violate an individual or worsen the conditions of the land for others. Having the right to ownership does not mean the right to harm, but rather the right to exclude. Just as I would not steal property from another individual (without fear of the protection agency), how is it just for anyone, including the government, to take earnings from individuals in the form of distribution or taxation? If just acquisition arises from the just history (any form you see fit), than wealth and free spending are simply functions within society with discretion falling under the responsibility of the buyer and seller of the goods.
In Utilitarianism For and Against by Bernard Williams, Williams has an argument that is based on the value of integrity. Integrity is defined as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles or moral uprightness. In Williams argument he believes in certain circumstances utilitarianism requires agents to abandon their personal projects and commitments. This lead Williams to claim that utilitarianism is an attack on an agent’s integrity. In my essay I will explain Williams’s argument on utilitarianism and how he is lead to believe it is an attack on an agent’s integrity. I will also explain why he thinks it can force us to abandon our personal projects. Within my essay I will also explain the theory of right conduct explained by Timmons in the book Moral Theory. I will also explain the notions of personal responsibility explained by Williams, as well as the notion of personal projects and commitments and the notion of integrity.
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
The Theory of Utility teaches that we make our decisions in life based on the basic principle of maximizing happiness – which can be measured in pleasure and pain. Morality can also be defined as that which brings about the largest amount of happiness, and the least pain. Unlike other theories, however, Utility states the happiness of all is to be considered over the happiness of one. When faced with a choice, one must choose the option that will cause the greatest pleasure and the least pain. Applying this part of the Utilitarian argument to the supplied scenario, it would seem that Utility would say stealing the ice cream and breaking the law are the morally right course of action. However, Utility continues on in its teaching stating that
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).
Utilitarianism provides a foundation for creating and testing different ideas and it offers an objective way of solving conflicts of self-interest that you would get by using the egoism theory. By following the utilitarianism theory you recognize the groups that are involved and/or society in part of the decision making process to determine if something is ethically correct or not. Utilitarianism does not allow a person to put his/her interests or actions first, someone who follows the theory of utilitarianism thinks in the best interest of the minority of the group involved. The last one is it can easily resolve conflicts of
1) In this statement, “Any just society must ensure that whatever the property ownership arrangement in that society, they enable all people to meet their needs,” both the libertarianism and utilitarianism reject this egalitarian criterion of a just society.
The aim of utilitarianism in general is optimal happiness, which is the only intrinsic good according to Mill. More specifically, act and rule utilitarianism differ in the manner in which they asses what will yield the greatest amount of happiness. Often, one of the objections to utilitarianism is that it is overly demanding. However, this objection that the utilitarian view is too demanding is fitting for both forms of utilitarianism, according to the Fundamentals of Ethics. In the following, I will address why utilitarianism is habitually seen as overly demanding, and I will provide a defense of utilitarianism contrary to these objections.
Utilitarianism is zdefined, as the right way to act is one that maximizes your happiness, (pleasure and happiness is the absence of pain) while the wrong way is one that produces the opposite i.e. pain. Unhappiness here is defined as pain or the opposite of happiness. This is the basis of utilitarianism or what Mill calls the “greatest happiness principle” and it is the best ethical theory by which humans should follow. The argument for the above is as follows
Here I will examine a couple of examples on the way utilitarianism is used in both the government and judicial sectors and while some believe that a utilitarian view keeps Americans safe, in reality it is outdated and destructive to America. This paper will attempt to give proof of the harmful effects of utilitarianism in politics.
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.
Many have different views when it comes to defining morality and the ways in which a person can achieve morality. The three different views that we have discussed in class are the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill, the non-consequentialism of Immanuel Kant, and the virtue-based ethics of Aristotle. Out of these three, the view of morality that I disagree with most is Mill’s utilitarianism for various reasons. I believe that the other two views have their flaws, but Mill’s view is by far the most flawed. His arguments that supports his view with should be disregarded and I cannot fathom why any person would support how he looks at morality.
Distributive Property or distributive justice is the economic framework of a society that asserts the rightful allocations of property among its citizens. Due to the limited amount of resources that is provided in a society, the question of proper distribution often occurs. The ideal answer is that public assets should be reasonably dispersed so that every individual receives what constitutes as a “justified share”; here is where the conflict arises. The notion of just distribution, however, is generally disagreed upon as is the case with Robert Nozick and John Rawls. These men have different takes on how property should be justly distributed. Nozick claims that any sort of patterned distribution of wealth is inequitable and that this ultimately reduces individual liberty. Rawls on the other hand, prioritizes equality over a diverse group where the distribution of assets among a community should be in the favor of the least advantaged. The immediate difference between the two is that both men have separate ideas on the legitimacy of governmental redistribution of resources; however I intend to defend Nozick’s theory by pointing out significant weaknesses in Rawls’s proposition.