Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
According to john stuart mill, critical
Is rule utilitarianism an improvement of act utilitarianism
Concept of utilitarianism- research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: According to john stuart mill, critical
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was one of the leading British moral philosophers of the nineteen-century (Feinberg, 596). As presented in class, Mill’s principle of utility is known as the greatest happiness principle which is defined as “actions are right as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to promote unhappiness” or in simple words “right actions maximize overall happiness” (Feinberg, 597). Mills definition of happiness is seen as “pleasure absent of pain” (Feinberg, 597). There are two different types of utilitarianism: act and rule. As talked about in lecture act utilitarianism is the “right action to perform on a particular occasion is the action which, on that occasion will result in the greatest sum of happiness. Rule utilitarianism is “the right action to perform on a particular occasion is the action which conforms with the rule such that, if the rule is generally followed, the greatest sum of happiness will result. Mill agrees with act utilitarianism and believes that it is the act, not conformity to a set of rules that determines an action’s moral status.
In the “Switch Case”, we are presented with a scenario in which there are two helpless men (Moe and Larry) tied to the railroad tracks and there is a runaway train speeding towards the two men. The train will surely kill the two men unless someone does something. The only possible thing to do is press a button that will cause the train to switch unto another track. Unfortunately, you see a third man (Curly) who is tied up on the other track. If you push the button, the third man will surly die. The act utilitarian approach to solving this dilemma would be to push the button and let Curly the third man die. This is true because those who believe in ...
... middle of paper ...
...n either case 1 or 3 and I would not throw Curly in front of the train in case 2 or 3. I do not believe that it is morally okay to sacrifice one life to save another. I would try to come up with an alternative solution in which I am not using a human being to save someone else. I know it may seem cruel but I would rather let the two be killed by the train before sacrificing another person. I believe that each life is important and no life is more important than another so I would never sacrifice someone’s life to save two other lives. While reading the cases I did not come across any important differences that would change my opinion about what I would do if I were put in that position.
Work Cited
Feinberg, Joel, and Russ Shafer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Boston, Ma: CENAGE Learning, 2013. Print.
The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong if they tend to deliver despondency or torment. Mill believes that the principle of utility is the perfect way to evaluate ethics is through the individual's happiness. People who have the opportunity to chose or purse there own form of happiness usually makes really wise ethical decisions, which improves society. I agree with mill’s theory because happiness always produces good things, which would very beneficial to the
Feinberg, Joel and Russ Shafer-Landau, eds. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group, 2002.
In the former choice, we decide to turn the trolley to save five, but kill one. Warren S. Quinn argues that “if our action is a certain kind of withdrawing of aid, it naturally enough seems to count as negative agency” (Quinn 303). The purpose of this choice is not to kill the lives of five. Actually, we have to kill the life of one, but it seems to be the failure to save one. This decision comes from negative agency. On the other hand, the later choice is decide to allow to kill five, but save one. According to Quinn, “negative agency would include the foreseeably harmful inactions that could not or need not have been avoided” (Quinn 292). The purpose of this choice is not to kill the life of one. The consequence that the lives of five is killed also seems to the failure to save them. This choice also comes from negative agency. In this case, we can’t avoid to sacrifice either the lives of five or the life of one. Moreover, this is the conflict between the agencies which have the same nature. Therefore, we can compare the moral values of the two choices by the amount of the sacrifice. As a result, we are morally permitted to turn the trolley in order to save the lives of five, but kill one in this
Mill grew up under the influences from his father and Bentham. In his twenties, an indication of the cerebral approach of the early Utilitarians led to Mill’s nervous breakdown. He was influential in the growth of the moral theory of Utilitarianism whose goal was to maximize the personal freedom and happiness of every individual. Mill's principle of utility is that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Utilitarianism is the concept that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote happiness for the greatest number of individual. He believes that Utilitarianism must show how the conversion can be made from an interest in one’s own particular bliss to that of others. John Stuart Mill also states that moral action should not be judged on the individual case but more along the lines of “rule of thumb” and says that individuals ought to measure the outcomes and settle on their choices in view of the consequence and result that advantages the most people. Mill believes that pleasure is the only wanted consequence. Mill supposes that people are gifted with the capacity for conscious thought, and they are not happy with physical delights, but rather endeavor to accomplish the joy of the psyche too. He asserts that individuals want pleasure and reject
It can be concluded that rule utilitarianism means that an act is moral permissible if such an act conforms to a moral rule that maximises utility. Rule utilitarianism dictates that one should choose saving the life of the innocent as there is a moral rule that urges us to protect the interests of children and such a moral rule leads to utility. Although, this theory is subject to numerous of criticisms, it is still quite appealing to solving the Trolley Car Problem and any other moral-ethical
In this assignment we are to determine the moral difference between Deontological moral theory and Utilitarianism with regard to the changing of lives on a chance twist of fate with the brakes blowing out of the Trolley excursion. To turn or not to turn that is the question. Weather it is nobler of the heart and mind to follow the path of one and not the other remains a personal choice.
A study was conducted in which participants were presented with three dilemmas. One dilemma was called the Trolley Dilemma: a trolley is headed toward five people standing on the track. You can switch the trolley to another track killing only one person instead of five. Subjects were asked to decide between right and wrong.
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.
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...
Kane, Robert. "Free Will: Ancient Dispute, New Themes." Feinberg, Joel and Russ Safer-Landau. Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. Boston: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning, 2013. 425-437. Print.
Utilitarianism is an example of Consequentialist Ethics, where the morality of an action is determined by its accomplishing its desired results. In both scenarios the desired result was to save the lives of thousands of people in the community. Therefore, a Utilitarian would say that the actions taken in both of the scenarios are moral. Since an (Act) Utilitarian believes that actions should be judged according to the results it achieves. Happiness should not be simply one's own, but that of the greatest number. In both scenarios, the end result saved the lives of 5,000 members of the community. The end result is the only concern and to what extreme is taken to reach this result is of no matter. In these instances the things that are lost are an Inmates religious beliefs or a mothers fetus, on the other hand Thousands of citizens were saved from dying from this disease.
An act utilitarian will view the consequences of a single action, and not the consequences of the big picture. For example, they would view the consequences of a single action of stealing something, and not the principle of stealing in general. Act utilitarian will “make the rightness of an action depend on all of its results, no matter how long after the action they occur,” (FE, 123). This requires that we have moral knowledge in order to determine if our actions will be optimific, depending on the possible consequences of the action. Utilitarians make the claim that we should use actual results from an action, and not the expected results; to determine if the action is optimific. Most act-utilitarians reject using expected results, because it “does not condemn actions that are reasonably expected to be optimific. “It has two problems…first it will…require actions that turn out to have disastrous results, when other options would have produced much better outcome,” (FE, 125). However, “some actions are expected to turn out badly, but end up with surprisingly good
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?’.
According to the theory of consequentialism, “an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results” (Landau, 2015, p.121). In this view, an individual’s action is deemed moral only if it produces the optimific result in any situation. In the article “Framing Effect in the Trolley Problem and Footbridge Dilemma,” the authors introduced the “Footbridge Dilemma”, wherein an individual is given the option to save the lives of five workers by pushing an innocent man towards an incoming trolley (Cao, et. al, 2017, p. 90). In this dilemma, consequentialism suggests that it is moral to push the innocent man and save the workers. Even though pushing the man would kill him, the action would yield the optimific outcome in that
Both Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, had thoughts of the Principle of Utility and what it should be like. Bentham believes that the Principle of Utility depends on pain and pleasure and Mill believes that the Principle of Utility depends on higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Pain meaning evil and pleasure meaning good or greater benefits and higher pleasures meaning that action was good which would lead to a higher level of happiness and lower pleasures meaning bad which would lead to a decreasing level of happiness. Therefore, a normative ethical theory that has come through from this and it is Utilitarianism. The definition of Utilitarianism is a course of action that maximizes the total