Examples Of Active Utilitarianism

Perhaps the biggest flaw of utilitarianism is its seeming disregard for intentions. Given that humans cannot possibly foresee all the consequences of every action, it can be tough to act rightly under utilitarianism. Most people attempt to be morally good by following generally accepted moral standards and by following what they believe will produce the most good. Where utilitarianism falters is in the fact that not all good intentions lead to good results. To clarify this, take an example of a surgeon and a patient. Suppose a surgeon receives a wounded patient who will certainly die if quick action is not taken. Now suppose this surgeon manages to save the patient’s life, only for the patient to later become a serial killer. A utilitarian

Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good (Driver, 2009). Utilitarianism insight is that morally appropriate behavior will not harm others, but instead increase happiness or ‘utility.’ Mill states that “the just society is the one that distributes benefits and burdens in whatever way will produce the greatest social benefits or inflict the lowest social harms” (Velasquez, 2008, p.19). Utilitarianism is appealing because it takes over the model of making decisions that individuals would make concerning their own lives. When a utilitarian perspective is adopted, then the maximum level of wellbeing in society can be achieved. An example of positive utilitarian thinking is the government tax system. The rich may not benefit from having to give up a greater portion of their income than the poor, but society as a whole benefits from this arrangement. The veil of ignorance opposes this view, as it is not seen as ‘equal’ and ‘just’. Behind the veil of ignorance, a utilitarian perspective is not

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

Act-utilitarianism also comes under fire from common sense morality. Actions that we would intuitively say were morally impermissible, such as killing an innocent, can often be condoned by act-utilitarian reasoning. For example, in a situation where, for some reason, five innocents could only be saved by the killing of one innocent, by act-utilitarian standards it seems it would be morally permissible to kill this person to save the other five as quantitatively this would

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.

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 extreme utilitarian can praise actions that they are aware are wrong because they look at the moment and the situation they are in. They can separate the consequences of actions itself from the consequences of approving an action. Utilitarian disagree about the judgment of right and wrong actual consequences and probable consequences as they cannot tell the outcome in the future. As in the example of the man drowning in the water and a person saves him from drowning and later they find out that the man was Hitler. After saving him, Hitler goes in Nazis and kills about six million Jews in the World War two. Utilitarian does not think that they did something negative by saving Hitler because at that time they did not have the time to look

For utilitarian’s, punishment in general is justified only insofar as it creates a greater balance of happiness vs.

In order for us to understand the moral theories surrounding the justification of punishment we must first accept that punishment exists to benefit the society we live in. Punishment as a whole should protect a community by sanctioning crimes to a significant degree whilst preventing them from reoccurring. If a punishment does not protect a community it is believed that that punishment is unjust and will be unfair to both the criminal and the community members. I believe that a retributivist style of punishment only focuses on the treatment of the singular rather than that of the masses. It is for this reason that I will argue why a consequentialist or utilitarian theory best allows us to understand the justification of punishment.

These cases pose great difficulties for the Utilitarian. (Many (if not all?)have to do with what Jonathan Glover calls THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS DOCTRINE; this states that `in certain contexts, failure to perform an act, with certain foreseen bad consequences of that failure, is morally less bad than to perform a different act which has identical foreseen bad consequences.'(Thus it is worse to KILL someone than merely to LET SOMEONE DIE (or to let someone else kill them. Thus some Catholics would justify the bombing of military targets in The Second World War even when such bombing was bound to cause civilian casualties). The Utilitarian is committed to REJECTING The Acts and Omissions Doctrine; but this seems unacceptable. (Failing to send money to the starving is wrong, but it is not as wrong as sending the starving poisoned food – Philippa Foot).

Act utilitarianism is an action that is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances. The principle of utility states that you should always perform the action that maximizes overall utility. Act utilitarianism and the principle of utility is a large portion of what I am going to refer to in this essay. The moral worth of any action is determined by outcome or consequences which explains why utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism. Utilitarianism is a form of teleological ethics.

Illegally downloading music from the Internet is a significant moral dilemma because while no physical harm is being done to anyone, the artists who create the songs are not being compensated for their work. Pirating music can constitute as stealing because the music that is being illegally downloaded is not being paid for. While pirating raises a moral concern, many people still download music illegally every day without justifying their actions. In this paper, I will attempt to use act utilitarianism to explain why illegally downloading music is a moral act, while rule utilitarianism says it is not a moral act. Utilitarianism can be used to justify pirating music because the act of pirating music can ultimately lead to a greater good for

Punishment involves the deliberate infliction of suffering on a supposed or actual offender for an offense such as a moral or legal transgression. Since punishment involves inflicting a pain or deprivation similar to that which the perpetrator of a crime inflicts on his victim, it has generally been agreed that punishment requires moral as well as legal and political justification. While philosophers almost all agree that punishment is at least sometimes justifiable, they offer various accounts of how it is to be justified as well as what the infliction of punishment is designed to protect – rights, personal autonomy and private property, a political constitution, or the democratic process, for instance. Utilitarians attempt to justify punishment in terms of the balance of good over evil produced and thus focus our attention on extrinsic or consequentialist considerations.

Utilitarians believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the consequences it produces. An act that results in at least as much pleasure or well being as other alternative acts is right, and vice versa. In other words, any act that does not maximize pleasure is morally wrong. Even though utilitarian ethics often clashes with conventional norms, the conflict has no direct moral relevance to the action.

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