More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for and against utilitarianism
Strengths and weaknesses of consequentialism
Arguments for and against utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The moral philosophy of Utilitarianism includes a calculation of happiness, in which actions are considered to be good if they produce happiness and evil if they produce pain. Utilitarianism also considers at what extent happiness can be created not just for an individual, but also others whom may be affected. By following a Utilitarian moral philosophy, a person can assure the best possible situation for the most amounts of people affected by every action they make. Utilitarianism is the centered on happiness, as a concept, and tries to promote the idea. The vision here is that if all people seek happiness, it will result in the happiness for all humans and animals. In the case that one does not produce happiness, one should also strive to reduce unhappiness. As Utilitarianism is wholly focused on the utility of a person’s actions, it is called a “consequentialist” theory. I argue that Utilitarianism is the best moral philosophy to follow due to its versatility, ethicality, and production of happiness for all. There are two main categories of this theory and I believe that they are both valuable. These categories include “Rule” and “Act” Utilitarianism. Each philosophy is better used in certain circumstances. “Rule” Utilitarianism has its pros when looking at the long term outcomes. “Act” Utilitarianism has its pros when looking at the present and short term outcomes. Sometimes we are unable to see the long term outcome and must act quickly using “Act” instead of “Rule”. I believe that this moral philosophy is the means by which we live. In general, any action done by a person is to produce some sort of pleasure. However, the fact that we cannot equate happiness and goodness means that we cannot use it as a means of judging pro... ... middle of paper ... ... which the act is done does matter to them. Utilitarianism is very vulnerable in this regard. A case where some people’s happiness is created at the cost of a few may not always be ethical. Opposition may say that “Someone always is left out in this theory” but I argue that this is always the case. I believe that Utilitarianism is a universal theory that can be applied to any situation despite the circumstance across all cultures and societies. This theory also uses efficacy in that it creates the most desired output for least desired input. This is much like the result of products in a capitalistic society; we want what works best, what costs the cheapest, and what lasts the longest. In my opinion, it is the most ideal philosophy for a democracy. The majority decides what is best. You put everything to a vote by the people and go with whatever the majority wants.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
The problem with Utilitarianism is not that it seeks to maximize happiness. Rather, it is that Utilitarianism is so fixated on generating the most happiness that the need to take into account the morality of the individual actions that constitute the result is essentially eradicated. In so doing, the possibility of committing unethical actions in the name of promoting the general welfare is brought about, which in turn, renders Utilitarianism an inadequate ethical
... believe that if the intent of the agent's actions is to try to maximize the greater good or to create the greatest net utility possible, then it does not matter whether or not one is successful in carrying out his/her chosen act. Lastly, questions of morality and whether what one is doing in upholding the utilitarian concepts is "right" hold no ground. This is because utilitarianism clearly states that if the act in question maximizes the net utility, without causing harm or pain to all considered, the real moral question becomes, "Wouldn't you be morally wrong in not carrying out said act?"
In this paper I will argue that Utilitarianism is a weak argument. According to John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism is defined as the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Happiness is pleasure and absence of pain (Mill, 114). At first glance the Utility perspective seems logical, however it often conflicts with justice and morality. I will begin by presenting the idea that good consequences do not always determine the right thing to do. Then I will provide the counterargument that utilitarians can bite the bullet. Next I will explain that Utilitarianism is too demanding for anyone to live by, and finally provide the counterarguments from the Utilitarianism perspective.
This paper will discuss the differences between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism, and whether or not the former is an adequate alternative to the latter with regards to consistency with ideas of right and wrong. This topic is particularly poignant because, like many philosophical questions, it does not have a definite answer, as both sides have their own deficiencies.
“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
I would like the reader to understand this need to assess our action is not necessarily a conscious and deliberate action that we take, but more from a philosophical questioning when we discuss ethics and which ethical theory is the best. Also, I used in the above the word pleasure, but here pleasure is not referring strictly to our bodily sensation but more our satisfaction and well-being like what Mill has discussed “intellectual pleasures”. This does not mean pleasure here is not hedonistic in nature in the sense the word is used but rather an extension of the term. Lastly, to clarify for the reader the opposite of happiness is not sadness; it is in fact unhappiness or pain. Further, the words ethical and moral are being used interchangeably. The above argument presented can be extended as follows
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.
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...
It seems that the greatest-happiness principle does not only represent men’s nature in the best way10 but also serves as the best alternative to other moral guides.
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
We have our own moral codes but our decisions are solely based on the impact of our perspective on the people’s welfare and happiness. Although it is in our perspective as utilitarian to decide what actions to make, the theory of utilitarianism has strengths and weaknesses.
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.
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,