Examples Of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism considers the pleasure and pain of every individual affected by an action. It also considers everyone to be equal and does not permit an individual to put their interests or relationships first. After this it attempts to provide an objective, quantitative method for making moral decisions. Utilitarianism is not able to assign quantitative measures to all pleasures and pains, and does not address the issue of some pleasures and pains that cannot or should not be measured-such as human life or human suffering.

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

English philosopher and social critic Jeremy Bentham argues that happiness and pleasure is what should be aimed for in life based off his theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is defined as the belief that actions are right if it promotes happiness or pleasure. Identifying an action as wrong or right depends on the amount of happiness or unhappiness an individual expresses from the action that takes place.

Utilitarianism doesn’t respect individual rights or liberty, because it doesn’t recognize any restrictions on actions that create the greatest happiness and that is not

Pleasure versus Pain: For a long time, Utilitarianism has been used to refer to different perspectives commonly falling under the semblance of this theoretical deportment (Lukas 43). To take the point of reference closer home, the paper will attempt to sum up the main theoretical perspectives of this ethical structure. For a significant portion, Utilitarianism identifies and distinguishes two absolutes in the universe: pain and pleasure. Moral law is shaped and

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.

Since its creation during the time of the classic Greek philosophers, the theory of utilitarianism has changed and developed. Various criticisms have been pointed out and expanded upon that expose key flaws in the theory’s design. One criticism that is made is that utilitarianism ignores justice. Critics claim that utilitarian minds would choose to take extreme, and potentially unlawful, action to ensure their quota of reaching the “maximum happiness” of the whole is reached. For example, if an individual decided that killing one person would bring happiness to a large group of people then the act would be considered moral. This, however, is not the case. In no instance is killing considered a “moral” action, but rather the exact opposite. Another criticism that is made is that people assign different values to various mental and physical

Utilitarianism basically says “who is affected by my actions”. It is pleasure in the absence of pain. It is an ethical theory that says that the right action will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people for the greatest length of time. When choosing what the greatest pleasure is, then that’s when qualified judges come to play. For utilitarianism we need qualified judges. These are people who can experience all pleasures under consideration. We need many different qualified judges for utilitarianism. Everyone experiences something different because we are all different. When you don’t have any qualified judges, then the theory is abstract. Whatever the majority of the qualified judges says is the better choice, then that is the greatest pleasure. People need to realize

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 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

Pleasure is measured in “utils”. Utilitarianism however does not support self-indulgence. It follows an equalitarian view that everyones pleasure is deemed equal. There are two forms of utilitarianism: Act Utilitarianism which is that the act is right if it causes the greatest amount of pleasure. For example if the

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 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.

Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.

An objection to classical utilitarianism is how it ignores justice and moral rights. According to Allison (1990, p.38), ‘Utilitarianism fails to provide adequate basis for justice because of its indifference to the pattern of distribution of goods and its goal of improving the aggregate good of all no matter how badly some individuals may do, it may sometimes legitimately augment considerations of justice as the satisfaction of needs.’ Philosophers such as Robert Nozick who came up with ‘the entitlement theory of justice’ also have similar arguments, ‘that satisfying some people’s needs violates other people’s rights.’ (Allison, 1990, p.39). So, for example, there is a story that has made an appearance in the newspaper this year about a female tourist being gang raped by five homeless rapists in India. If we were to look at this from a Deontological theorist, this act is wrong because raping someone is an unjust act to do. However, from a classical utilitarian perspective, this act will be the right thing to do because when adding up the amount of happiness and pleasure the rapists would be getting in comparison to the pain the female tourist would feel, 5:1. However, in saying this, the utilitarian may object to this saying it is not right in saying that they will agree that this would be the right act to do. For example,