Examples Of Utilitarianism As A Regulatory Framework

Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that the production of happiness and reduction of happiness should be the standard by which actions are judged right or wrong and by which the rules of laws, public polices, social institutions and morality. According to utilitarianism, an act is not right or wrong merely because it is a case of lying or telling the truth; and the moral rule against lying is not in itself correct. Lying is wrong because, in general, it has bad consequences. Ethically the rule against lying can be subjected to empirical study to rationalize some cases of lying, such as to

Rule Utilitarianism came about as a response to the objections toward act utilitarianism. The problems with act utilitarianism are mostly associated with internal support, the lack of support from “our considered moral beliefs” (Timmons 6). Timmons gives different criteria to evaluate a moral theory, and internal support is one of the six. Act utilitarianism gives guidelines that a person would not find to be morally right because of internal support. As a response to this shortcoming, utilitarians modified the moral theory and created rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism should address all the problems that act utilitarianism raises regarding internal support. The problem with rule utilitarianism arises when realizing that the theory

The morality of euthanasia from an extreme utilitarian perspective means acting on what’s best for the vast majority based on one’s particular actions. The morality of euthanasia is determining what is considered to be wrong and right in the eyes of someone with a utilitarian perspective.

The three principles of utilitarianism are “1. All ‘pleasures’ or benefits are not equal, 2. The system presumes that one can predict the consequences of one’s actions, and 3. There is little concern for individual rights” (Pollock,

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 a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

The Active Utilitarian approach is the best philosophy of thought for justifying punishment. Active Utilitarianism’s view of punishment revolves around the idea of what brings about the best consequences or the most net good. General rules of punishment are short cuts for decisions. The Active Utilitarian does his/her best to produce the most benefit from punishment for the most people and is not constrained by rules. Active Utilitarianism can lead to ideas such as pre punishment or vicarious punishment but those ideas would be rare because of the Utilitarian’s need to produce the most good. Active Utilitarianism is the best approach and its potential flaws can be countered.

(6)You should not kill an innocent (friendless but healthy) person EVEN IF by doing so (and giving his organs to several others) you could increase net happiness.

The Utilitarian ethical theory states that what makes an action ethical or unethical are the good or bad results of the action. Actions are chosen to increase pleasure and avoid suffering and, some pleasures are better or higher than others. The theory, therefore, focuses on the outcome of a person’s actions

I also believe that act utilitarianism is preferable. I liked your examples on number two. I believe that every moral choice should be situational. If someone was to ask a controversial question then they make get the response “It depends.” I often answer questions with this statement. In my opinion a decision should made based on the situation. Scope is an aspect that is used in act utilitarianism, which applies to your example of the terrorist. The book claims, “The greater the scope, the greater the impact on overall utility” (112). When using scope of act utilitarianism it would say kill the terrorist because in the long run the people are greater in number. On a website addressing utilitarianism it suggests, “If it is clear that breaking

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.

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

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.

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.

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.