Examples Of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a teological ethical framework that offers a way to analyze the transistor company’s dilemma. Utilitarianism is consequentialist in nature, meaning that the theory only takes in account the consequences of an action to determine if that action is morally right. More specifically, Kay (1997) explains “utilitarian ethics defines morality in terms of the maximization of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a decision or action” (p. X). For example, it would be acceptable to a utilitarian to kill one person if it meant saving two more people. This is in stark contrast with deontological ethics, which prohibits actions that use people as a means to an end.

When faced with adversity and difficult dilemmas, people have different ways to figure out what to do; some people make pros and cons lists while other people just go with their gut. Ethical theories like utilitarianism and deontology, can aid people in making these difficult choices. Utilitarianism focuses on the results of your actions, rather than the intent behind them, as the goal of the theory is the create the greatest good for the greatest amount people. On the other hand, deontology follows a strict moral code concentrating on the right or moral action rather than the results it yields. While utilitarianism and deontology focus on different aspects of decision making, the effect and the intent respectively, they often yield the same result; more often than not the more ethical decision leads to the greater result. These ethical theories are both used in Snow Falling on Cedars by David Gunderson where they both agree on the topics, yielding the same results.

Utilitarianism also known as the principle of utility is an ethical theory proposed by early philosophers. This theory implies that actions are only judged by its consequences whether they are good or bad. One should perform a particular action because it will yield the best results for all. This approach also analysis the cost and benefit relationship. The downfall with this theory is that not everyone benefits (Fremgen, 2016).

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

Although utilitarianism appears to be a simplistic theory, it in actuality is one of a more complex nature. There are many variables to consider when evaluating a utilitarian path of ethics. For example, whose happiness is more important and should be maximized? When organizations decide which is the better path to take for the group, they put into consideration only their own

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.

Utilitarianism poses an issue when it is used as the sole method for decision making. I do not agree with it at all. There is no way to truly calculate or measure the outcome of a situation. It involves setting aside your values to make a decision based on what will

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,

Utilitarianism is useful as it is a teleological ethic, so there are no exact rules. Humans naturally base their actions on what the consequences will be, so it is easy to adhere to this kind of ethics. Moreover, considering the results seems warmer and personal, as deontological arguments can be cold and rigid (e.g. stealing bread to feed starving children). This makes it more useful because it allows people's gut morality to be used more than being too legalistic. However,

The Marriot commercial depicts several scenes where people are helping others in one fashion or another in an attempt to have the viewer believe we all need to treat each other as we want to be treated. However, the golden rule seems offers a Kantian or Utilitarian approach to how we should act towards one another. Upon closer examination, the golden rule is redundant when considering other given moralities. Generally speaking, there is a moral consensus that we should not harm, mistreat, or inflict injustice on one another. Another facet of the golden rule is to treat people fair and be helpful.

Utilitarianism is a good in theory but like many other moral theories it has its conflicts which just outweighs the good. Utilitarianism focuses on the happiness overall so every decision one makes has to be based on whether is could create the most happiness for everyone. Due the fact that its only purpose it doesn't focus on on the human rights, other moral principles, or even on what those choices and judgements can say about us. By utilitarian standards a judge can commit an innocent man to death if it results in the greater good of the people as a whole. We know that this is a morally wrong thing to do because the death on an innocent man shouldn't be right even if the rest of the town people will stop rioting or creating violence out

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 argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.

The case I chose to apply utilitarianism to is case number three. In case three, I am working for the number one car manufacturer in the country. Our latest model the Hipster is planned to be released but has potential brake issues. These brake malfunctions could cause serious injuries from accidents due to drivers being unable to stop the vehicle. The requirement is to submit a report and let consumers know that there is a recall after the government department approves the recall. However, this recall will end up costing the company a huge amount of money, which will end up taking away from profits. If the company pretended to not knowing about the defective brakes it would save the company money. This would also put our customers at risk. The Hipster models were supposed to be held in customs while an investigation was being made. But, the Hipster models were released without any changes and certifications. Now it is my job to see if I should look more into this event based on applying the principles of utilitarianism. I will apply the thought processes of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism in the case scenario to give a better understanding of each principle.

One of the major players in ethical theories has long been the concept of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that in general the ethical rightness or wrongness of an action is directly related to the utility of that action. Utility is more specifically defined as a measure of the goodness or badness of the consequences of an action (see quote by Mill above). For the