Consider a case or thought experiment where act utilitarianism seems to give the wrong answer. How do you think the act utilitarian should deal with this case? Act utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism that is derived from the greatest happiness principle of utilitarianism, which is defines as “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (cite, got from lecture slides). Happiness and reverse happiness in this definition stand for pleasure and pain. Act utilitarianism measures the net pleasure of an action. If this net pleasure is positive, the action is morally right, but if this net pleasure is negative, the action is morally wrong. In most situations, act utilitarianism is morally correct, but that is not always the case. In this paper, I will explain how political power can be manipulated through the majority and minorities of a country’s population and how that can lead to the oppression of minorities, but also be morally right under act utilitarianism. “As mentioned above, act utilitarianism uses pleasure minus pain to determine the amount of pleasure that will come from a certain action. If an action creates more pleasure than pain, then that action is considered to promote happiness” (Mill pg.). Act utilitarianism comes from the philosopher, John Stuart Mill. This theory of act utilitarianism derives from the greatest happiness principle. Actions that promote happiness is another
Two different forms of utilitarianism are described in our text. The first is called act utilitarianism. According to Shaw and Barry, act utilitarianism states that we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected (p.60).
Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same
Act Utilitarianism determines a morally right act as the one that produces “the greatest overall utility in its consequences.” (EC, p. 111) In Case 1 (EC, p. 124), it could be argued that Act Utilitarianism would support an individual purchasing a hybrid car due to the overall utility of the consequence outweighing the disutility. However, Act Utilitarianism has weaknesses to accompany its strengths when assessing whether an act is morally right or wrong. One problem of Act Utilitarianism, shown in Case 1 (EC, p. 124), is that it is irrational to expect people to calculate all of the possible consequences and the scope, intensity, duration, or possibilities of buying or not buying a hybrid car. The buyer is expected to scope out and recognize every individual that is affected by his/her act of buying a car. They are also expected to assess the period of time of which the effect of their act lasts and how strong or weak the force of that act is. It’s unrealistic to assume that a buyer will place everyone else’s preferences before his/her or predict the consequences of such action in order to create an overall happiness. The theory does present a solution to strengthen this weakness, which is the ‘rules of thumb.’ Buyers will most likely not purchase a hybrid car while following the ‘rules of thumb’ law due to the immediate pleasure of purchasing a cheaper and more recognizable car. However, its obvious that this solution does not always produce what Act Utilitarianism would
Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.
For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart Mill defines Utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle 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 privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.
Utilitarians believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the consequences it produces. An act that results in at least as much pleasure or well being as other alternative acts is right, and vice versa. In other words, any act that does not maximize pleasure is morally wrong. Even though utilitarian ethics often clashes with conventional norms, the conflict has no direct moral relevance to the action.
Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.
Act utilitarianism works were the action of a person is considered right if the consequence in the end helps the most people. That means no matter what action the person performs if it helps the most people it will be the correct choice to make. A good example of this is that if harming your friend will save the lives of five other people than it the correct choice to make. It is part of the idea of utilitarianism thus is part of the idea of
Going off of these videos, one can judge the actions of the characters through various philosophical lenses. These actions include when V kills a man, when V commits suicide, and then when the other members commit suicide.
Act utilitarianism is a theory of ethics which will state that a person 's act is as morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other act that the person would perform at that particular time. To understand how an act utilitarianism works, you have to compare the consequences for example if you decided to watch television all day tomorrow to the consequences of your doing some sort of charity work instead. You could produce more overall happiness in the world by doing charity work tomorrow than by watching television all day. According to act utilitarianism, then, the right thing for you to do tomorrow is to go out and do some sort of good in the world as in charity work; to utilitarian’s it is wrong for you to stay home and watch television all day.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it
2. To begin, I will be defining both act and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, you determine the morality of an act by measuring the pleasures and pains for a specific situation Angeles 326). Act utilitarians take into consideration only those affected in the specific situation. However, rule utilitarianism determines the morality of an act “according to the good or bad consequences that ensue from following a general moral rule of conduct…” (Angeles 326). Good examples of those general moral rules are phrases like, never steal or never tell a lie. In any situation, people can use either act or rule utilitarianism to determine the correct course of action.
A problem with utilitarianism is the psychological effect it has on one person. The utilitarian course of action is one where the good is defined before the right. If the consequences turn out bad, the person with the integrity is going to feel bad and think that they did the wrong thing. A utilitarian will think they did the right thing because of how the outcome appeared to be before the actions took place.
Utilitarianism is the argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.
The case I chose to apply utilitarianism to is case number three. In case three, I am working for the number one car manufacturer in the country. Our latest model the Hipster is planned to be released but has potential brake issues. These brake malfunctions could cause serious injuries from accidents due to drivers being unable to stop the vehicle. The requirement is to submit a report and let consumers know that there is a recall after the government department approves the recall. However, this recall will end up costing the company a huge amount of money, which will end up taking away from profits. If the company pretended to not knowing about the defective brakes it would save the company money. This would also put our customers at risk. The Hipster models were supposed to be held in customs while an investigation was being made. But, the Hipster models were released without any changes and certifications. Now it is my job to see if I should look more into this event based on applying the principles of utilitarianism. I will apply the thought processes of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism in the case scenario to give a better understanding of each principle.