In everyday life, we are always contemplating whether or not our daily actions are morally right or wrong. If something morally wrong occurs, people would naturally ask themselves “what went wrong?” In Philosophy, the Utilitarian belief states that the main goal is to make life better by allowing more positive things happen, and to try to mitigate the bad events in one’s life. To make this happen though, one must try to avoid pain and try to increase happiness and pleasure by doing what allows them to be happy. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) states that Utillitarians, “reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders or supernatural beings. Instead, …show more content…
Act Utilitarism states that there is one good way for people to produce the highest amount of utility with all the decisions people make. If people maximize the good for every action that they preform, they will ultimately have the highest overall utility which is within their power. Alternatively, if people sometimes choose random actions that produce less utility overall, their total utility will be much lower than the original amount of good they could have produced. This is why Act Utilitarianists choose to view every individual act made, rather than groups of acts. Act Utilitarianism is also more preferred because they reject the rigid rule based moralities that look at groups of actions that are right or wrong. They argue that looking at a group of actions as a whole and defining them as right or wrong is a mistake because they could have less utility overall. To make decisions easier, Act Utilitarianists suggest having a “rule of thumb” or rules that state what is generally right or wrong. If someone can do more good when going against a certain rule rather than obeying the rule, then they should go ahead and violate it. Act Utilitarianists see no reason to follow a rule when more good can be done when going against a …show more content…
Once someone looks at that particular perspective, they will be able to foresee all the consequences of all the available options, therefore, choosing the option that will produce the most moral good. Some people doubt though, whether or not we can measure amounts of well-being. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) states that, “If two people are suffering and we have enough medication for only one, we can often tell that one person is experiencing mild discomfort while the other is in severe pain. Based on this judgment, we will be confident that we can do more good by giving the medication to the person suffering extreme pain. Although this case is very simple, it shows that we can have objectively true answers to questions about what actions are morally right or wrong.” Although Act Utilitarianists have a methodical way of measuring the amount of good or bad in a decision made, Rule Utilitarianists also have their own way of maximizing human happiness and
...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.
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian believes that a person must think things through before making a decision. The only exception to this idea applies with rules of thumb; decisions that need to be made spontaneously. The right act is the one that results in the most utility. Rule utilitarians believe that an act is only deemed appropriate if it fits in line with the outline of valid rules within a system of rules that target the most favorable outcome.
“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
In the textbook, Questions that Matter: An Invitation to Philosophy, utilitarianism is defined as “The ethical doctrine that an action is right if, and only if, it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people” (Miller and Jensen 376). There are two distinguishable positions within utilitarianism: rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seeks to find which rule should be applied to a situation to bring about the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people, whereas act-utilitarianism seeks to find which action should be applied to bring about the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people. In this paper I will argue that rule-utilitarianism is the more plausible of the two positions because society cannot function without set rules of conduct. In his article, Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism, J.J.C. Smart renames act-utilitarianism as extreme utilitarianism, and he describes it like this: “According to this doctrine we test individual actions by their consequences, and general rules, like'keep promises', [sic] are mere rules of thumb which we use only to avoid the necessity of estimating the probable consequences of our actions at every step” (Smart 344).
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.
Imagine a child living in a hot, government owned apartment in Chicago. He has no father. With his single, jobless mother he struggles to the words of the founding fathers: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...” (The Declaration of Independence). This is one of the most famous phrases in the US Declaration of Independence and has become the underpinning of the dreams of millions of people around the world. Although the words are different, these sentiments are reflected in the political and economical policies of many democracies. While the notion of ‘happiness for all’ seems like the obvious solution to many of our persistent problems, we inevitably encounter conflicts between our actions and our morals. “The state is based on……the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities.”(Marx, 1992). This essay focuses on the issues of a prominent theory, Utilitarianism as it blends and encompasses both areas of Economics and Ethics which have become the basis of our governmental bodies.
There are many essays, papers and books written on the concept of right and wrong. Philosophers have theorized about moral actions for eons, one such philosopher is John Stuart Mill. In his book Utilitarianism he tries to improve on the theories of utilitarianism from previous philosophers, as he is a strong believer himself in the theory. In Mill's book he presents the ideology that there is another branch on the utilitarian tree. This branch being called rule-utilitarianism. Mill makes a distinction between two different types of utilitarianism; act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Rule-utilitarianism seems like a major advance over the simple theory of act-utilitarianism. But for all its added complexity, it may not actually be a significant improvement. This is proven when looking at the flaws in act-utilitarianism and relating them to the ways in which rule-utilitarianism tries to overcome them. As well one must look at the obstacles that rule-utilitarianism has on it's own as a theory. The problems of both act and rule utilitarianism consist of being too permissive and being able to justify any crime, not being able to predict the outcomes of one's actions, non-universality and the lose of freewill.
The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.
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.
The principal of utility is to maximize the happiness in ones self by using benefits misusing the harms. It acts as to produce advantage, pleasure, good or happiness and the greatest net balance of benefits over harms for all affected impartially. In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill was trying to show that actions and institutions should increase the overall amount of happiness in the world, and stressed the importance of utilitarianism as the first principle in ethics. Happiness should be judged, not only by pleasure, but by pain as well, Mill believes that a person should always seek to gain pleasure and reject pain. According to Smart, the act-utilitarian is to regard rules as mere rules of thumb, and will use them only as rough guides. “Normally he will act in accordance with them when he has no time for considering probable consequences or when the advantages of such a consideration of consequences are likely to be outweighed by the disadvantage of the waste of time involved.” (Smart, 42) In theory, one could do a harms/benefits analysis to discover the right course of action in every case. But for practical reason, act-utilitarianism uses rules as guidelines. Only when one has good reason to believe one is in a situation. Smart draws the distinction between the ‘right’ and the ‘rational’ act by using the term rational as a term of commendation for that action which is, on the evidence available to the agent to produce the best results. He uses the word right as a term of commendation for the action which does in fact produce the best results. So Smart says that what is rational is to try to perform the right action, to try to produce the best results. A good rule of act-utilitarianism is one that are designed to maximize...
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
Along with his Principle of Utility and the criteria to judge pleasure and pain, he adds more criteria into the mixture such as intensity, duration, certainty (uncertainty), and nearness (farness), along with fecundity meaning if more of the same pleasure or pain will follow, and purity meaning that the pleasure is not followed by pain, or the pain not followed by pleasure. (Utilitarian, 2017). The addition of all these criteria means that the “utility” can be a measurable amount, and with increasing the criteria it can be measured well, and with more certainty. This measure of “utility” can be used for any number of actions, or rules. Utilitarianism very simply is a way to test the utility of any action, or rules, that are put through the criteria, but it takes into account the well-being of not only the person judging the Utility, but also the well-being and impact on the others that may be involved, others simply being sentient beings. Act-utilitarianism can be defined as “good” or “bad” depending on the results of the criteria the right or wrong act is judged based of the best, or the least amount of bad results, like most ethical issues judging acts is very difficult, as they can be seen in different light or as possibly beneficial in one way while detrimental in another. Rule-utilitarianism is the same, but it judges and questions how valid rules of codes of conduct are.
Utilitarianism believes in 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” (Boss, 389). In this sense, actions are based on your morals or virtues that you believe that you execute in your daily lives. In the case of utilitarianism in general, your individual actions are governed by if it creates more good for yourself or the group affected. In other words, an action is morally right depending on how much happiness it promotes. An excellent example would be to either punch the baby or tickle the baby. If a person punches the baby, it will cause great pain towards the baby and cause him or her to be sad and
Morality as a whole tries to create a distinction between right and wrong, good and bad. Making decisions should arguably always be aimed towards good. Under the philosophical doctrine of Utilitarianism, philosophers like Bentham and Mill recognize that human kind should make their lives useful and good through bringing about happiness or pleasure. The idea of the “Greatest Happiness Principle was introduced by Bentham, who was a Utilitarian predecessor to Mill. According to Mill, human lives should abide by the “Greatest Happiness Principle.” This principle states that actions are good as they tend to promote happiness; and bad as they promote the reverse of happiness, therefore humans should make a conscious choice of action that will lead
Act utilitarians like Bentham believe that an action is right or wrong depending on what good will the society results from it. Even if the action individually is not necessarily morally right as long as the ending result is beneficial for the society, that action is then considered right. For act utilitarians the end justifies the mean. Actions are also evaluated individually. It may be right for Tim to steal a pen in situation A but wrong for Ben to steal one in situation B. It will depend on the