Act Utilitarianism: The Case Of Bente Hindriks

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.

There are two different types of utilitarianism that Pojman focuses on, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism is the idea that an action is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative, while rule-utilitarianism is the idea that an action is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative. Although, both result in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number, the actions taken to produce this result is different in both versions of utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, a decision is quickly made that will have the greatest amount of good as a result for the greatest number, but in rule-utilitarianism the decision has to follow a set of rules (such as don’t lie and don’t cause harm)

Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human’s natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

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?”

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.

Mill and Bentham are two important philosophers that have stood by the moral theory of classical utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, a form of hedonism, is defined by Mill as “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals… holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (241). Happiness is the ultimate intrinsically valuable desire according to human nature and consequently pains are intrinsically repulsed. Mill and Bentham have their own perspective on this philosophical concept. This paper will explore and analyze the commonalities that Mill and Bentham share from utilitarianism as well as the conflicts their viewpoints have with each other. Bentham’s work will be critiqued to prove why Mill’s

1. 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 alternative. However rule utilitarianism differs from act utilitarianism in that rule-utilitarianism does not assess each act solely by its utility.

Government control is dashed into modern American society. Throughout the years, though, nations have overdosed on totalitarian regimes where the government's conforming control reins rampant. George Orwell’s dystopian novel, 1984, is a prime example of a charred and displeasing tenure. The novel is stirred by a heated dictatorial power whose primary goal is to assimilate its citizens with harsh cookie-cutter policies. The political party in 1984 enforces many such policies to control its people. They ration supplies so the people constantly need the government, and even praise them. Also, the Party seeks to remove all interhuman intimacy. To limit intimacy and supplies effectively, the Party also limits all language. This way the people cannot

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?

The actions that Jean undertook were done in an attempt to increase overall happiness for himself and Pierre. Im the process he attempted to reduce pain and suffering by impersonating a medical professional, a doctor, in order to get the prescription filled. The actions that Jean undertook, while saving a life, were unauthorized because he is not certified as a medical professional.

Utilitarianism states, “The morally right action is determined by the consequences of the action, not the motives of the agent”. Utilitarianisms consider happiness to be the foundation of morality. The famous version, “act utilitarianism,” says the morally right action is the one that brings about the greatest consequence of the greatest number of people. Mill thought it was obvious that everyone ultimately wants to be happy, so he made this the foundation of his moral philosophy. Mill notice that people were literally defining utility as the opposite of pleasure and not understanding the complete purpose of utilitarianism. Whereas, utility is defined, “As pleasure itself together with freedom from

I found that the idea of utilitarianism was quite interesting. I did not agree with Mills when he stated that actions that are right promote happiness, while actions that are wrong result in the reverse of happiness. I did agree with is that ones goal in life is to pursue happiness. While Mill brought up God in his agree it also made sense that the idea of utilitarianism is a religious and non-religious thing. Mills also brought up when people do actions that benefit others and the greater good instead of themselves. However, I did not agree to them idea that people are too prideful and are not willing to compromise happiness in order for the greater good. An example of this was when the Government wanted Apple to unlock an Iphone for a terrorist

Singer states that there are two main perspectives of utilitarian. Act utilitarianism only requires us to answer one question: Does this action maximize happiness? Singer points out that the action is the one that possess the consequences that are considered to the best than any other which are open to human beings. Therefore, the ethicality is guided or examined basing on the case-by-case point of view. Rule utilitarianism would have us ask two questions: What general rule would I be following if I did this action and would this rule, if generally followed, maximize happiness? This explains the best ethical action will follow a rule which states that if that identified rule is adhered to will generate the best consequences that considered to be the best rule. Therefore, this kind of utilitarianism provides the best ethicality rules test; for instance, answering the question stated “When will physician-assisted suicide be acceptable? The rule will

Act utilitarianism is a practical theory which asserts that an act is right if and only if it provides at least as much good as any other thing done. An act utilitarian attempts to produce the most amount of good or happiness for the greatest amount of people with their actions. With Act Utilitarianism one must account for all possible actions and calculate which action produces the most good both in and of itself and further in all the consequences that will arise because of said action. One may adopt the act utilitarian point of view to help guide them through situation in which they don’t know how to respond. An example when this point of view could be beneficial is if one is presented with a question they know will cause unhappiness for

On February 15th 1748, Jeremy Bentham, who would become the chief expounder of utilitarianism, was born in London, England. Born to two attorneys, Jeremy grew up in a time of major economic, social and political reform. The Industrial Revolution, rise of the middle class, and the coming revolutions in France and America were just some major changes Bentham was able to witness. Entering Queens College in 1760, and studying law at Lincoln’s Inn in 1764. Despite being qualified to practice law, he never did so. Bentham prefered to write matters of legal reform although, he never went on to publish much of his work.