Bernard Williams Utilitarianism

In this case I would disagree with the views of Mill, because I feel very strongly that if I was put in Jim’s situations I am not morally obligated to make the choice in killing one to save the many. No one’s life is greater or more important than the next. I can 't just do what other people think is more efficient or right in this situation most would save the majority of people to appease the overall happiness of everyone. I won 't because that one person doesn 't deserve to die either, and it doesn 't justify the outcome for me being that I am the one who has to take a life. This may be senseless but that is fine because whether I was there or someone else, somebody has to have their life taken to benefit the next. Whether it be 19 or 1 I personally could not weigh the two and make that choice because

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

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

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

Many people in the world have accomplished selfless acts that bettered our world and made a lasting impact on history. For example Mother Teresa spent most of her life giving back and taking care of the ill. Many people aim to make a difference and live as selfless of a life as possible but in reality it is rarely accomplished. The goal of utilitarianism is to benefit those involved and even though the moral of the theory is good there are some implications that cause people to question the morality behind the theory. In both Mills and Pojman’s essays they determine the pros and cons of Utilitarianism .The theory of utilitarianism determines the moral of its action based on whether it maximizes utility. Mill states in his article Utilitarianism

Question 1: Williams thinks that the doctrine of negative responsibility, which follows from the principle of utility, undermines personal integrity. Do you agree that being held responsible for the consequences of not acting, of failing to prevent something, will (always or sometimes) erode the idea of personal integrity? Is there any way to be a utilitarian and still respect the integrity of individuals?

in that it holds that the RIGHT action (in any given situation) is the action WHICH HAS

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.

Williams has a recurring gripe with the ideas of utilitarianism. He believes that in making a utilitarian decision one must forget his integrity, for in making his decision, it is not his personal reputation which takes priority.

John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism by stating how a standardized system in which people’s actions may be judged to differentiate between right and wrong has been minimal in progress. He expresses the misconception with the way utility is understood by the general populous and other philosophers. The struggle to lay the foundations in what constitutes as right and wrong dates longer back than 2000 years ago.

Negative responsibility is the notion that a person is equally responsible for the consequence of an action they did not do (i.e., people are responsible for things they fail to prevent or allowed to happen).William uses negative responsibility to critique utilitarianism, specifically to the consequentialism aspect. Sine consequentialism is only concerned with the end result, it does not take into consideration of other factors involved in the situation. Williams will argue that consequentialism will go against integrity because it will hold people accountable for other people’s action, not just their own. Integrity is important to William because it is the relationship between people’s action and their project. For William, the meaning of life is grounded in their commitments (i.e., their personal attachments, things they really care about, etc.) and projects. He claims it is too much for utilitarianism to ask people to give up their meaning in life for the better good, something they might have to do if they have negative responsibility like in George’s situation. We should not accept that negative responsibility plays a role in morality. In Kant’s Murderer at the Door case, it isn’t fair for us to take responsibility for the murderer’s action. If we don’t lie, as Kant forbids, we are doing so out of moral duty, not because we want the victim to die. If we were able to prevent so, we would have but seeing as doing two wrongs doesn’t make a right, it would be too much for us to blame ourselves for someone we couldn’t control. What if he was at a door half way around the world? Technically, according to consequentialism, we are still responsible since we allowed it to happen. It’s just impossible for us as humans to prevent all the badness in the world to happen and to be blamed for things outside our control (negative responsibility) is unreasonable and

Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.