In my opinion, Bentham’s argument for utilitarianism is unsatisfactory. Firstly, I will provide a background on his argument. Secondly, I will argue against Bentham and provide examples which illustrate the negative consequences of utilitarianism. Thirdly, I will argue that it’s practically impossible to maximize universal happiness.
Another objection towards consequentialism also can be deemed a positive characteristic, and this is the idea of impartiality. Impartiality suggests that no one is more important than another person,
This essay features the discussion of the problem of evil in relation to the existence of god. Specifically outlining two sections where the problem of evil is discussed from atheist and theistic viewpoint.
Morris Fiorina, the writer of The Rise of the Washington Establishment beings the article by explaining the basic theories on which the axiom lies on. He starts off by telling the reader that typically a person acts in their own self-interest. He doesn’t condone this but does agree with Thoreau’s comment that, “if I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good I should run for my life.”
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
In the following paper I intend to compare and contrast the three major philosophical viewpoints regarding this question, and come to a
What is meant by “my own good?” David P. Gauthier, author of Morality and Rational Self-Interest, says that “Either that the thing I get is good, or that my possessing it is good.” What he is stating is that good can differ in
There is no such thing as “absolute good” but “good for”. Whenever I meet my defining moment, I think about the question, “Whose good should I be serving?” I am not saying to evaluate whose interests are more valuable, but to evaluate whose interests are more important TO ME. There are three principles for me to evaluate different interests. The first is the interest’s indirect impact on the third party. For example, the police are investigating a theft and I know who the thief is. I must
In his second premise, Peter Singer asserts that “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally,
The utilitarian promotion of pleasure or happiness as the intrinsic good makes it akin to Hedonism or Epicureanism that holds “mental delight and peace were the goods to be sought in life (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54). Thus, utilitarianism as “a pleasure or happiness theory” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54) promotes that the only goals that man ought to seek were happiness and pleasure (MacKinnon, 2012). On the other hand, one has to note, that utilitarianism is not egoism, for the fact that happiness and pleasure are to be