Critique of Bentham's Quantitative Utilitarianism

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

Bentham argues that humans only commit actions on the bases of utility, which is the desire to enjoy happiness and prevent pain. He is certain that utility alone governs human morality and that the principles of utilitarianism are morally correct for every situation. Bentham claims that the purpose of morality is to increase the happiness of society and every action should aim to benefit the greatest number. He argues that without attaining happiness for the greatest number, society becomes dysfunction. In Bentham’s perfect utilitarian society, individuals would put aside their personal desires which cause pain to society as a whole in order to promote universal happiness. Bentham, strongly suggests that utilitarianism has no uncertainties, period. After objective analysis under Utilitarianism, before committing any action an individual must first examine the happiness which can be extracted from the action and the potential harms that it can cause, if the action yields more pain to the greatest number it is immoral. Bentham concludes that pain can’t yield happiness and that for an action to be morally correct it must

The ethical teachings and values of utilitarianism and Christian ethics are similar in some aspects, yet however are diverse in others. Utilitarianism is a generally teleological ethical system, where the outcome is said to justify the act. The act is considered ‘good’ if it brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Christian Ethics, however, can be quite different. Many aspects of its ethics are deontological, for example, the Decalogue and Natural Law. There are other differences and indeed some similarities which will be considered throughout this essay.

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

Deontology and teleology have been regarded two of the dominant theories in the history of ethics. In response to the question ‘What shall we do?’ the former theory tells us that we should do the action(s) that adherence to a principle (s). Conversely, the latter theory holds the view that we should do the action(s) that promotes happiness or pleasure regardless of the principle(s). Intention plays a significant role between the two theories, though it acts differently. The intention of deontological theory is to follow principle(s) whereas for the teleological theory, the intention is to follow the better outcome(s). In her book Meaning in Life and Why it Matters, Susan Wolf rejects both of these theories because they leave out many of 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.

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

The best way to illustrate this key difference between deontological and teleological theories is by examining Philippa Foot’s trolley problem. Overall, this illustration attempts to clarify under what circumstances it would be morally just for one person to violate the rights of another for the purpose of benefiting the group. In doing so it helps one essentially justify harming someone in order to benefit the group/larger number of persons. It is able to do this by assigning equal utility to those involved. In doing so, this shows the practical nature of Utilitarianism, and how it is “content heavy” – making very evident the right way to make decisions.

So that is Bentham’s Utilitarianism Theory all explained through three parts, the Motivation of pain and pleasure, the Principle of Utility and the Hedonistic

On the other hand, Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian, argued that the right action was the one that “tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to diminish it” (Bentham 481). Bentham believed that the determination of a right action was the actions ability to generate pleasure to the greatest amount of people and for the longest

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.

The most common use of utilitarianism is by way of consequentialist moral theory. Consequentialists believe that an act’s rightness and wrongness depends solely on its consequences and nothing else. An act is right when the algebraic sum of total utility unit

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.

Throughout life, individuals are often faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas which can be difficult to assess given the factors of the situation and consequences, based on what is right and wrong. In this paper I will be assessing the Trolley Problem in relation to Utilitarianism and Deontology and will conclude which theory is the best way to behave given the situation. In the first paragraph, I will begin by discussing the Trolley Problem followed by the next paragraph’s which will explaining how Utilitarianism and Deontology would approach the situation. Furthermore, I will be discussing which theory I believe is right in regards to the best way to behaving in society, given the possible outcomes of the problem. Since the moral issue of killing and letting die are close in hand, Deontology is the only explainable way to behave because this theory approaches all situations in regard to what is fair and acceptable for all, while Utilitarianism takes an approach that degrades humanity and differs from person to person.