Ethical Decision Making

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

First, I will introduce the two different theories. Utilitarian theory is an ethical theory that a person is to act based on whether that certain action will benefit the most. For example, if one could sacrifice one person’s interest to maximize the benefit of the majority, then it is ethical to do so.

Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most

Utilitarianism is the idea that whatever is decided to be best for the greatest number of people is the best course of action. When applied to the criminal justice system, utilitarianism becomes "consequentialist" in nature; meaning that the idea of the punishment of criminals, and its effect on society, must be taken into account. ("Punishment-Theories of Punishment") In other words, society must benefit from the punishment and not be

The simple definition of Utilitarianism is “the belief that a morally good action is one that helps the greatest number of people”("Utilitarianism," ). However, Utilitarianism is far from a ‘simple’ philosophy, and while there is no perfect doctrine when it comes to Normative Ethics, Utilitarianism comes the closest for a number of reasons. The first is impartiality; or rather equality of concern for everyone’s well-being. The second is that Utilitarianism is not based in religion. The third is that the Utilitarian school of thought includes non-sentient beings in the moral community .The last and most important reason is the idea of ‘moral flexibility’: the Utilitarian belief that no moral rule is absolute. Nor should it be.

The basic utilitarianism view holds that an action is judged as right or good on the basis of its consequences. The ends of an action justify the means taken to reach those ends. As a consequentialist principle, the moral authority that drives utilitarianism is the calculated consequences, or results, of an action, regardless of other principles that determine the means or motivations for taking the action. Universalism, or can be called as deontological ethics, holds that the ends do not justify the means of an action is the right thing must always be done, even if doing the wrong thing would do the most good for the most people. Universalism, therefore, is also referred to as a non-consequentialist ethic.

Utilitarianism can be defined as the theory that maximizes the benefits of the majority by taking the best action. Take the trolley problem, for example. From a utilitarian standpoint, the best action would be to save the most people regardless of the situation. However, because we are the ones to decide whether flipping the switch is a good idea or a bad one; it depends on who we are and what the situation is. For example, one person might agree with the utilitarian; and is confident that it is best to save the most lives as well. Another person might not be decisive and it will be too late, and another person might understand the situation, but will not do a thing about it because they question whether they should play god and decide on other

Put simply, the utilitarian approach is characterized by the principle of doing the most good for the greatest number of people (Bazerman & Moore, 2013). This principle may seem simple, but there are many facets to the utilitarian approach which complicates its application in the decision making process. For example, from the utilitarian perspective one may assume that all decisions should be weighed within a system of majority rule; however, this is not always the

Utilitarianism is reasonable to apply in our life because of a variety of limitation. For example, if the student wants a good grade, studying hard will be the best choice. The reason is that the time is limited, if the student spends much time on playing, he will not have enough time to study; thus, he will not achieve his goal that getting a good grade. One more example, a robber is robbing the bank, and there are five hostages in the bank. You are a policeman and need to decide that if you insist catching the robber, these hostages will lose their life; otherwise, if you release the robber, these hostages will survive.

Utilitarianism has an extensive history and will be proven to be one of the most unconditional and plausible theories of normative ethics. Two attractive features of utilitarianism are the flexibility and impartiality that it maintains. Utilitarianism affirms that everyone’s happiness is evenly matched to the next persons. The flexibility holds that utilitarian’s do not believe that any action is intrinsically wrong.

The Utilitarian view is that we should act to promote the greatest amount of happiness and the least amount of suffering. According to this philosophy, an action is morally right if its consequences lead to happiness and wrong if it leads to pain. An example would be a city’s enforcement of speed limits. Overall safety of all the drivers on the road is more important than one person’s need for speed. In utilitarianism everything useful to happiness is good and everything that is not useful is bad. According to utilitarianism, one should consider the possible consequences of an act, but the difficulty in putting utilitarianism into action is deciding how much personal right one should sacrifice in order to further the good of the people.

Firstly, utilitarianism promotes individual liberty and places certain restrictions on the limits of authority. Society has the right to punish an individual only to prevent harm against another individual. The ‘harm principle’ states that, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, 2014, p.

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that focuses on what an individual should do, rather than what they must do. This division of ethical theory dictates an action to be morally right if the consequences of the action produce the greatest benefit for those affected by the action.

The Definition of “Utilitarianism” is an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "good" of the greatest number of individuals. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its resulting outcome. The most influential contributors to this theory are considered to be Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.”1 Utilitarianism is a simple theory and its results are easy to apply. It also allows for degrees of right and wrong, and for every situation the choice between actions is clear cut: always choose that which has the

Utilitarianism is not restricted by the principle that human life has absolute value and so is able to assess each individual situation on its own merits to promote the