Examples Of Negative 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 a theory in normative ethics which suggests that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Utility is related to the good of human beings. Individuals who are for utilitarianism defines utility as the combined pleasure after reducing suffering of all involved in any action. Some individuals have expanded this definition of utility to consider not only the quantity, but quality of pleasure, while focusing on rules, instead of individual moral actions. Others have denied that pleasure has actual value and have advocated negative utilitarianism, which defines utility only in terms of suffering.

Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.

30). Mill, in contrast to Bentham, distinguished differences in the quality of pleasures that made some intrinsically preferable to others independently of the intensity and duration. Other philosophers in the Utilitarian tradition have identified certain wholly non-hedonistic values without giving up on their Utilitarian credentials. Even in restraining the recognition of intrinsic value and disvalue to joy and sadness, other philosophers have argued that those feelings cannot sufficiently be further categorized in terms of pleasure and pain and have thus preferred to defend the theory concerning maximizing happiness and reducing pain and sadness. It is vital to note that even for the hedonistic utilitarians, enjoyment and suffering are not thought of in solely sensual terms; happiness and suffering for them can be components of experiences of all sorts. Their argument is that, if an experience is not enjoyable or painful, then it is a subject of indifference and has no intrinsic

Consequentialism is a broad ethical theory that describes one 's actions to be good or bad depending solely upon the consequences of those actions. The distinguishing element of this theory from others is that the action itself has no value without analyzing the expected consequences, as explained by William H. Shaw in “Consequentialism”, “...when it comes to rightness or wrongness, nothing matters but the results of our actions” (Shaw 28). Then the question is, what exactly does it mean for a consequence to be deemed 'good '? Utilitarianism, a more specific form of consequentialism, answers this by describing a 'good ' action to be one that brings about the most happiness or well-being for everyone. John Stuart Mill states, “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals “utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness: wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). This theory seems simple when applied to everyday situations. However, it can become tricky when applied to more complex, multi-faceted, situations. Obviously there are differentiating levels of happiness. For example, in a situation where it seems there may be no such thing as a happy outcome, the anticipated consequence that is deemed to be the 'lesser of two evils ' would be perceived to bring about the most well-being compared to the other choice. This theory may also seem difficult because it is based on

Utilitarianism - the idea that the greater good factors into every equation and is more relevant than any individual’s worth.

With utilitarianism we want to allow the goodness, pleasure, or the desire of willing to be morally good. In reality we strive to live for happiness, but not everyone can be as happy. On the negative aspect we don’t want to have to experience pain, suffering, heartache, and negative experiences. The positive aspects of deontology is defined as a principle of utility, which states that everyone deserves the same worthiness and equal value.

Utilitarianism is the system of values stating that maximizing the total happiness of all people is good. Happiness of people should be sacrificed only to bring greater happiness to other people. Psychologically, immediate happiness corresponds to what you want. Pain, including psychological distress, is the opposite of happiness. Actual happiness is not the same as

Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, as it determines right and wrong by focusing on outcomes. Utilitarian’s believe that the most ethical decision is a choice that will produce the greater good for the greatest number of people. Furthermore, this means that the actions are deemed as right as long as they promote happiness and deemed wrong if they produce unhappiness. Utilitarianism also relies on a theory of intrinsic value, Utilitarians essentially believe that pleasure or happiness is the only thing that has intrinsic value, meaning that something is simple good in itself. A third fundamental claim held by utilitarian’s is that everyone’s happiness is matters equally.

For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart Mill defines Utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.

One criticism of utilitarianism is ‘The Comparative Consequences Objection’. The problem is that it requires humans to predict the consequences of their actions in the future. Often times, it is very difficult to determine the long-term effects of actions. Because life consists of various occurrences that are linked together, there are an indefinite amount of possible consequences to any specific act. In response to the criticism, utilitarian’s note two different types of consequences.

In other words, the value of pleasure and pain must be measured in according to four conditions: Intensity, Duration, Certainty/Uncertainty, and remoteness. When calculating, each person affected by the decision must be individually evaluated on those four principles. Then the sum of the values of pleasures and pain should be calculated on different sides. The balance between both pleasure and pain will then be evaluated and used to determine if that particular action will produce either “good” or “bad” consequences (Bentham,

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, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

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.