Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The virtue approach ethics
The virtue approach ethics
Impact of utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The virtue approach ethics
Utilitarianism - To put Utilitarianism into my own words, I would phrase is as whichever causes less damage in the end. EX: If I was faced with a choice of choosing whether to kill one person and save 10 or kill 10 to save one, I would kill the one person because it causes less damage and saves more lives in the end. Deontology - I would phrase Deontology as the focus of good or bad, or what would the outcomes or consequences be for two different senarios. EX: If I was faced with stealing formula so my child could eat, or letting my child starve because I can't afford their food, I would definitely steal the formula because the outcome of stealing wouldn't be as bad as facing the fact that I let my child starve. Virtue - This I would put
as the devil or angel on your shoulders. EX: If you have a history of bad doings in your record of course you are going to be looked at more as a criminal, but if you have a history of good and get caught doing a bad thing the judgement theory is going to play a little bit more in your favor of second chances. Relativism -To put this as simply as possible for me, I would define it as your faith or belief that something is good or bad or right or wrong. EX: In america some of us get grossed out by the mere smell of poop or having to touch it is like you are reaching for a big bowl of spiders. Point is it is not in our moral belief that it is essential to even come near feces ecpecially animal dung because we don't know where it has been, but in India and other countries they use cow feces mixed with mud and water as a source of concrete for architecture or design on walls. The theory that sounds most promising to me is Deontology and Virtue, because Deontology talks about helping someone out or making the up most sacrifice to keep food on the table for your family. And Virtue discusses how before you judge someone based on one screw-up look at their past and see if they have had any issues before the one incident.
With utilitarianism ethics, they consider the end product. Balanced out, the happiest result happens by all parties compromising. (COB,
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
ABSTRACT: Recently, unrestrained consequentialism has been defended against the charge that it leads to unacceptable trade-offs by showing a trade-off accepted by many of us is not justified by any of the usual nonconsequenlist arguments. The particular trade-off involves raising the speed limit on the Interstate Highway System. As a society, we seemingly accept a trade-off of lives for convenience. This defense of consequentialism may be a tu quoque, but it does challenge nonconsequentialists to adequately justify a multitude of social decisions. Work by the deontologist Frances Kamm, conjoined with a perspective deployed by several economists on the relation between social costs and lives lost, is relevant. It provides a starting point by justifying decisions which involve trading lives only for other lives. But the perspective also recognizes that using resources in excess of some figure (perhaps as low as $7.5 million) to save a life causes us to forego other live-saving activities, thus causing a net loss of life. Setting a speed limit as low as 35 miles per hour might indeed save some lives, but the loss of productivity due to the increased time spent in travel would cost an even greater number of lives. Therefore, many trade-offs do not simply involve trading lives for some lesser value (e.g., convenience), but are justified as allowing some to die in order to save a greater number.
In other words, the kind of choice made is dependent on an individual’s values. According to Margaret McLean, the selection between good or bad is made depending on three ways. In the first case, an individual thinks all that matters are the results. As such, why not lie? The outcomes may be bad, and it will hurt people. In the second perspective, individuals are guided by the rules. Therefore, why not lie? The rules mandate the truth. In the third case, a person chooses not to lie because of his/her values. For instance, they are honest. Therefore, an individual’s decision-making process is guided by the anticipated results, rules, and character traits (McLean,
Examining the case with the Utilitarian mindset, we consider the overall positivity of the action vs the positivity of the alternative. In this case, what is the measure
Traditionally, the utilitarian philosophy defines the ethical importance of acting for the greater good and welfare of society, which will bring about the most good for all people. In this way, the utilitarian will usually take a position on a certain act through the premise of “act” utilitarianism and “rule” utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism makes certain exceptions about the “right” moral decision based on individual acts; as, in contrast, rule utilitarianism is based on adhering to the “right” act no matter what the circumstances. In both cases, utilitarianism would argue that a “right” ethical decision will have the best overall consequences, no matter what type of sacrifice is made. For instance, Jake tells John (1) that he will kill one man to save the lives of one hundred people, or that (2), he will kill all of the people. If Jake kills the one man, then John will have no ethical or moral obligation to feel remorse for the act, since he has saved the lives of ninety-nine people. However, Williams would countermand this argument through the concept of “negative responsibility” for murdering the
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 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 an ethical theory in which determining the rightness or wrongness of action or decision is based on determining whether the greatest benefit or happiness will be provided in the highest or greatest number of population. This simply means that action or decision must be based on the highest amount or number of beneficiary (Martineau, 2006). However, this ethical theory has two major types. First is the “act utilitarianism” and second is the “rule utilitarianism.” Act utilitarianism specifically adh...
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.
Two ideologies that exist in ethics and apply to decision-making are utilitarian and deontological viewpoints. Ethical theories provide a systematic approach to decision-making toward the applications of standard principles. “In utilitarian ethics, outcomes justify the means or ways to achieve it” (Mandal, Ponnambath, & Parija, 2016, p. 5). Decisions made considering utility are based benefitting the greatest number of people. In utilitarianism, outcomes determine the moral nature of interventions. Some people are to experience harm, but the overall outcome is good for most individuals. Applying utilitarianism personally or professionally seems relevant when considering its ideology maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering. Utilitarianism
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).
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,