Act Rule And Preference Utilitarianism

In this paper I will explain how Act Utilitarianism, pure Rule Utilitarianism, and pseudo-Rule Utilitarianism would differ in their reasoning regarding the case of Al and Betty. With each method of reasoning, I evaluate the situation without background or moral assumptions of each character, and then separately with the assumption that while Al was away Betty became chronically ill and has one day left to live.

Moral theory of utilitarianism is siting the right and wrong only on outcomes of an action over another action. The theory site that the action is right if it bring greater amount of happiness and pleasure for the greater amount of mankind. The expected utility is concerning about people preference over the choices that uncertain result. The difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that act utilitarianism care about the right moral action as a single act where the rule utilitarianism focus on the consequences of the action when the action repeated more than once.

The ethical theories of deontology and the branches of utilitarianism; act and rule, display similarities and differences within the meanings of both. Act utilitarianism theory is the focus on the outcome of an act. Rule utilitarianism is the method of an individual’s actions. The theories of deontology and utilitarianism both present moral rules and values. Deontology focuses on the motives of an action, whereas utilitarianism centers more on the end result. The Act utilitarianism theory is more effective by judging the morality of an action based on the consequences of its outcome.

This may be considered a more refined version of Act Utilitarianism as it addresses some shortcoming of the earlier ethical theory by universalizing the situation. In this regard, rather than base the ethics of the situation on whether it will result in beneficence for the greatest number of people, it instead bases its ethics on the gain in happiness or loss if everyone worldwide carried out the action that is being judged. As applied to the subject issue, Rule Utilitarianism would ask, “If every corporation/company/organization paid subjected their workers to poor working conditions and poor, unfair wages, would it result in a net loss or gain of happiness?”

Morality is a complex subject and ethical dilemmas yield differing opinions and theories that have manifested through time by intelligent philosophers. There were two influential philosophers’ names Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant, who formed differing theories, in an attempt to set a uniform approach to ethical dilemmas and morality. Bentham was a firm supporter of Utilitarian theory; which focuses on overall happiness and consequences of an action (EMP 122). While Kant believed in his own theory that moral rules are absolute (EMP 129). Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics have few strengths and notable weaknesses, thus proving both theories implausible when compared to

The concept of Utilitarianism has been around for hundreds of decades with origins in ancient Greece, with Epicureanism. Modern utilitarianism was advocated by Bentham in the 18th century which drew other philosophers such as Mill to construct their own alternatives to Bentham’s original concept. In this essay, I will be analysing Rule-Utilitarianism (RU) and I will be comparing and contrasting it with Act-Utilitarianism (AU) to see if it has any advantages over the latter strain. Utilitarianism is the most common form of consequentialism, which is the theory that an act is morally right or wrong depending on the consequences it produces. Therefore, this concept treats the intentions or the act itself as irrelevant. Utilitarianism is a hedonistic theory which measures actions in terms of happiness or pleasure. Mill used the principle of utility in which he believed a right action is one that maximises utility for all, with every rational being regarded as equal. So, according to utilitarians, one ought to promote the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

Human beings constantly ask questions regarding the nature of morality. In this process of prescriptive inquiry, they invoke specific ethical theories to explain the concept of right or wrong. The reason is that morality is concerned with the question of good or bad of an action. When determining the morality of actions, there are two principles of ethical philosophies that must be contrasted. These philosophies are teleological and deontological theories of ethics. While teleological ethics concentrates on the consequences of actions to achieve some sort of end, the deontological theories assert that morality is an obligation thus cannot be reduced due to the creation of desirable outcomes. Given these distinctively opposite traits of the two ethics, it is obvious that the methods of approaching moral theories are differs from each other. Kant and Aristotle developed theories that are contradicting to each other, however, both of them gives us a reason to ask questions and seek answers. This essay will be analyzing main ideas of two philosophers and comparing the theories introduced by them.

This paper offers an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham in order to argue that both of their moral theories are two different ethical principles. Nevertheless, many of their reasonings are applied in moral debates and are relevant in today’s society. Both of these philosophers brought back moral philosophy and provided different approaches on how an individual should follow moral principles. In the first part of this essay, I will analysis Kant’s moral philosophy, such as context of right and wrong, the meaning of the text, and provide evidence that these principles is applied in today’s moral debate. Then, I will discuss Bentham’s moral philosophy using the same steps of analysis.

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

If you had the option to choose, would you rather live in a society where you are treated as a rational being or a world where your contentment in life could all be taken away as a means of contributing to someone else’s happiness. When reflecting upon ethics and the many different theories, it is no question that Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham come to mind. After all, two of the most pronounced ethical theories are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. These two principles are extremely important and have had endless impacts on ethics and the world as a whole. These philosophers, Kant and Bentham, worked to study moral nature and developed theories based on moral philosophy. Although they are quite contrasting,

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

1. Utilitarians believe that “one should so act as to promote the greatest happiness (pleasure) of the greatest number of people” (Angeles 326). However, within the utilitarian community there are major splits in how we are to determine which action brings us the greatest amounts of pleasure. Today I will be focusing on two ways to determine which actions bring the greatest amount of pleasure to a situation: act and rule utilitarianism. I will define both act and rule utilitarianism, give a situation where both can be applied, and respond to an objection of utilitarianism. I will also be discussing why I believe act utilitarianism helps more people than rule utilitarianism, in turn, becoming ‘superior’ to rule utilitarianism.

In this essay I have chosen to compare two opposing theories, Immanuel Kant 's absolutist deontological ethics and Joseph Fletchers relativist situation ethics. The deontological ethics focuses on actions made according to duty and the categorical imperative - which shows how acts are intrinsically good or bad. The situation ethics state that no act is intrinsically good or bad, and that actions should b made according to love. From this perspective it looks as thought Kant 's views were less personal than Fletcher 's, although in actuality both focus on the best outcome for humans.