Act Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain and happiness, than any alternative. The rightness of an action entirely depends on the value of its consequences, this is why the theory is described as consequentialist. The “separateness of persons” is an objection against utilitarianism stating that the theory fails to recognize people as distinct individuals. It rejects the allowance of one person’s loss to be offset by another person’s gain, and it is only the net sum total that ultimately matters. Recognition of the “separateness of persons” is needed to put constraints on such trade offs. In this essay I will lay out the theory of utilitarianism and explain the “separateness of persons” objection presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Ultimately I do think they present a successful argument, since utilitarianism is detached from individuals it can lead to grotesquely immoral consequences when put into practice.

Utilitarianism can be generally defined as a way of thinking where one chooses an action based on the amount of happiness that it would produce. In the book Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, by Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, the authors state “Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism,” and that “John Stuart Mill explained it as ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.’” (MacKinnon 95). This means that utilitarianism focuses on result of an action based on happiness and that decisions can be taken made by looking at possible outcomes of that decision. What Mill stated would be defined as “ the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle.”( MacKinnon, 95). This principle is one in which could be

Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,

The simple definition of Utilitarianism is “the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people”("Utilitarianism," ). However, Utilitarianism is far from a ‘simple’ philosophy, and while there is no perfect doctrine when it comes to Normative Ethics, Utilitarianism comes the closest for a number of reasons. The first is impartiality; or rather equality of concern for everyone’s well-being. The second is that Utilitarianism is not based in religion. The third is that the Utilitarian school of thought includes non-sentient beings in the moral community .The last and most important reason is the idea of ‘moral flexibility’: the Utilitarian belief that no moral rule is absolute. Nor should it be.

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?”

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

Act Utilitarianism is a long standing and well supported philosophical argument that when boiled down to its most basic elements, can be described as creating “the greatest good for the greatest number” (122). Such was the sentiment of John Stuart Mill, one of act utilitarianism’s (also known as just utilitarianism) greatest pioneers, and promoters. Mills believed that his theory of always acting in a way that achieved the greatest net happiness was both superior to other philosophical theories and also more beneficial to the general public. However, as often occurs in the field of philosophy, there were many detractors to Mill’s ideas. Two specifically strong arguments are known as the doctrine of the swine, as well as man’s lack of time. While both certainly present valid arguments against Utilitarianism, neither is damning of the theory altogether.

As with every other general theory, a naive interpretation of utilitarianism may lead to incorrect results. For example, one may be tempted to steal to transfer money to a more deserving person. However, our economic system can work only if property rights are protected, so the government has a duty to prevent theft. Theft has dangers and negative side effects such as punishment of the thief, distress of the owner, and abridgments of property rights, which are necessary for good economy. Thieves tend to have an inflated opinion of themselves; a decision procedure for theft must account for such inflation. It is for these reasons that theft is generally wrong, and for the same reasons, most societies developed an intuitive disapproval of theft. In another example, a judge may be tempted to misinterpret an unjust law so as to reach the desired result. However, the power of the judiciary is based on their good faith interpretations of the laws. Judicial honesty is essential for the retainment of such power and thus for the compelling benefits of an independent judiciary. Another misinterpretation of utilitarianism is that you have to give away all your money to poor people in third world countries. However, money can be

Act utilitarianism has two different versions. One versions says that an act is right if and only if its actual consequences would contain at least as much utility as of those of any other act open to the agent. Another version claims that an act is right if and only its expected utility is at least as great as that of any

For example, there is a hunter who wonders if it is morally acceptable to kill a deer. Act Utilitarianism analyzes the effects of this one action to decide if it is moral by assigning a value to the amount of pleasure and pain each individual involved will experience. In this case the hunter and his family will experience the pleasure of having food from eating the deer, many of the neighbors of the hunter will experience pleasure by having the deer off their property, and the deer’s family will experience the pain of the loss of a family member. If the outcome is that the net value of pleasure is greater than the pain caused by the killing of the deer, it is morally right for the hunter to kill it.

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

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.

Before I discuss the theory of utilitarianism, it is imperative to explain and understand what it is. Utilitarianism is a moral theory, or a doctrine explaining why certain actions are right or wrong. It is the idea that moral