Comparing Two Views Of Utilitarianism

No form of Utilitarianism addresses the concerns raised about the intrinsic value and human life, it is a simple, easily exploited mask of morality. While the claims are to maximize happiness, with the reasons being that it wants to increase the aggregate happiness in general, the theory promotes with the inverse to eliminate as much unhappiness as possible. Rather than maximizing the good for all involved, one could easily just attempt to a limit the amount of people affected by whatever deed is done, especially if the deed would be considered bad if people knew about it. By keeping the action to a select

1. Shaw and Barry distinguish two different forms of utilitarianism. What are these two forms? Briefly describe each and use examples.

Libertarians reject Utilitarianism’s concerns for the total social well-being. While utilitarians are willing to restrict the liberty of some for the greater good, libertarians believe that justice consists solely of respect for individual property. If an individual isn’t doing something that interferes with anyone else’s liberty, then no person, group, or government should disturb he or she from living life as desired (not even if doing so would maximize social happiness). They completely disregard concern for an overall social well-being. Using a libertarian’s perspective, a state that taxes its better-off citizens to support the less fortunate ones violates their rights because they have not willingly chosen to do so. In that same context, a theory that forces capitalists to invest in people and natural capital is immoral. Nevertheless, libertarians encourage that people help those in need, as it is a good thing.

I have always been one to side with a utilitarian’s point of view, such as Mill and Bentham. The greatest happiness of the greatest number, or as cold as it may be, sacrificing the few for the good of the many. Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. I will give the best arguments against Utilitarianism, and show in my own opinion, why I think they are wrong.

The most important question of all is what should one do since the ultimate purpose of answering questions is either to satisfy curiosity or to decide which action to take. Complicated analysis is often required to answer that question. Beyond ordinary analysis, one must also have a system of values, and the correct system of values is utilitarianism.

In this scenario, I think the act utilitarianism best supports my choice. Act utilitarianisms observe precise movements, rather than the general rules governing them, to assess whether they will result in the greatest utility (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). I am concerned with the consequences of my actions, but I would rather make a decision that benefits the greatest number of people. I think autonomous vehicles should act in ways that preserve the most lives. As people, we react to dangerous situations due to our reflexes. Therefore our judgment at the time of a crisis might not be the best decision. But we respond to a dangerous situation in whatever way we can to avoid a catastrophic outcome. Utilitarian thinking involves

(6)You should not kill an innocent (friendless but healthy) person EVEN IF by doing so (and giving his organs to several others) you could increase net happiness.

The central claim of utilitarianism is that the good is happiness. Where happiness is a desire, and happiness is the only thing desirable as an end (in of itself). All other things are desirable as a medium to acquire that final happiness. The main belief of utilitarianism is to maximize the good in the world, which is pleasure and happiness whilst minimizing the bad, which is pain and unhappiness. Both pieces “The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas” by Ursula K LeGuin and "The Experience Machine" by Robert Nozick provides arguments against utilitarianism.

If it would be permissible to inflict harm on a human being as long as it could potentially benefit others, then people could seek for an excuse for any unlawful behavior. For instance, it would justify an armed robbery and killing of a wealthy person by a gang just because it was one individual's loss vs. a gain for many group members. If a homicide of one person for the benefits of others would somehow become justified, such approach would lead to the collapse of our established system of law and order, morals, and ethics, consequently resulting in the rise of violence and crime. Therefore, the rule utilitarianism would find not approve forced organ procurement process from a healthy individual to five debilitated patients as it could set a precedent of failure of law and order resulting in devastating consequences, which would outweigh the alleged happiness of five patients received

I found myself going back in forth on which ethical system that I was most closely aligned with and I ultimately went with utilitarianism versus conflicting absolutism. As I was completing my research My deciding factor between the two is McCallum statement explaining conflicting absolutism, doing what fulfills the highest rule in a situation may excusable if the actor did not precipitate the moral conflict through antecedent evil acts (2016). I believe as a Christian one should always find a way out of bad situations. John 8:32 states, “And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Therefore, I am not convinced that Joshua: 2, story of Rahab and the spies was placed in the bible to say it's ok to lie instead provide an

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

As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which

Utilitarianism is the ethical belief that the happiness of the greatest number of people is the greatest good. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers that were leading advocates for the utilitarianism that we study today. In order to understand the basis of utilitarianism, one must know what happiness is. John Stuart Mill defines happiness as the intended pleasure and absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure. Utilitarians feel the moral obligation to maximize pleasure for not only themselves, but for as many people as possible. All actions can be determined as right or wrong based on if they produce the maximum amount of happiness. The utilitarian belief that all actions can be determined as right or wrong based only on their repercussions connects utilitarianism to consequentialism. Consequentialism is the belief that an action can be determined morally right or wrong based on its consequences. Just like any other belief system, utilitarianism faces immense amount of praise and criticism.

Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.

In addition to this it has the property of universalisality in that the right action will be right for everyone. However, as a pragmatic and functional system of moral analysis, Utilitarianism has a number of difficulties. One of the major problems is the fact that it is extremely difficult to quantify happiness, and if it is not possible to decide which of several available actions produces the most happiness, it follows that it is not possible to decide which action is the right one. Also a particular action generating a high degree of happiness may have unforeseen consequences that have the opposite effect. Can it be morally right to have a completely innocent and well person killed if two seriously ill people could be saved by an organ transplantation? Is an action always and incontrovertibly right because it gives greatest happiness to the greatest number of people? – Brady(1999) refutes this: “the majority vote is not an ethic; it is a social choice technique.”