In Utilitarianism For and Against by Bernard Williams, Williams has an argument that is based on

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

In John Stuart Mill’s book Utilitarianism, he argues for the defense of utilitarianism, an age old theory originally developed by Jeremy Bentham that states the proper course of action is the one that maximizes happiness. The course of action that maximizes general happiness is also the only true standard for moral assessment. Mill also introduces the idea of ‘first principle’ which states that it is not acceptable for individuals to characterize actions as either ‘good’ or ‘bad’, because it is important to find what gives these words their resonance. Opposing Mill’s view of utilitarianism is Bernard Williams. Williams states that a theory that is dependent upon the consequences of individuals actions rather than how a person who constructs those actions feels poses a serous problem. Williams’ argument deplores utilitarianism by exposing simple flaws that utilitarians may have. His thesis argument is that providing a recipe for moral decision; making process that may ultimately lead to the maximum possible utility actually misinterprets the accurate complications and excludes many other factors and consequences such as lack of accountability for one’s integrity. (Online)

In Bernard Williams “Utilitarianism & Integrity” he begins by defining Utilitarianism as a philosophical theory that focuses on maximizing happiness as much as possible or in certain ethical dilemmas picking the lesser of two evils. He gives two scenarios of where two men face an ethical dilemma in efforts of demonstrating utilitarianism and objection to consequentialism. Furthermore, Robert Nozick’s “The Experience Machine” and the utilitarian test cases of George and Jim relate since they reject the ideology of hedonism.

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

Utilitarianism can be generally defined as a way of thinking where one chooses an action based on the amount of happiness that it would produce. In the book Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, by Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, the authors state “Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism,” and that “John Stuart Mill explained it as ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.’” (MacKinnon 95). This means that utilitarianism focuses on result of an action based on happiness and that decisions can be taken made by looking at possible outcomes of that decision. What Mill stated would be defined as “ the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle.”( MacKinnon, 95). This principle is one in which could be

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 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.

Many people in the world have accomplished selfless acts that bettered our world and made a lasting impact on history. For example Mother Teresa spent most of her life giving back and taking care of the ill. Many people aim to make a difference and live as selfless of a life as possible but in reality it is rarely accomplished. The goal of utilitarianism is to benefit those involved and even though the moral of the theory is good there are some implications that cause people to question the morality behind the theory. In both Mills and Pojman’s essays they determine the pros and cons of Utilitarianism .The theory of utilitarianism determines the moral of its action based on whether it maximizes utility. Mill states in his article Utilitarianism

Mill 's Utilitarianism and Ross ' Intuitionalism both use moral intuitions as core components of their moral theories, but their valuation of these intuitions in making morally sound decisions differ. I will argue that it is this misevaluation of moral intuition in the Utilitarian tradition that makes the moral theory unstable and prone to criticism. Ross ' deontological approach to moral intuitions provides a more believable, and morally acceptable account of the role these intuitions play in making ethical decisions. In this paper, I will begin with underlying both Ross ' and Mill 's valuation of moral intuitions in the framework of their moral theories, followed by a brief explanation of each philosopher 's view of “what makes an act moral”. Having established these I will, with the aid of a brief anecdote, describe my difficulties with Mill 's utilitarian approach to ethics. Finishing with an assessment of some utilitarian complaints about Ross ' theory. Ultimately Utilitarianism provides a commendable theory for widely applicable and practical moral action, but its inability to address conflicts with strong moral intuitions weakens its argument. Ultimately Ross ' more flexible, yet not relativistic, deontological intuitionalism becomes a more attractive moral theory.

Williams, Bernard, 1973. ‘Integrity,’ in J.J.C. Smart and Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against New York: Cambridge, 108–117.

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

Williams has a recurring gripe with the ideas of utilitarianism. He believes that in making a utilitarian decision one must forget his integrity, for in making his decision, it is not his personal reputation which takes priority.

A problem with utilitarianism is the psychological effect it has on one person. The utilitarian course of action is one where the good is defined before the right. If the consequences turn out bad, the person with the integrity is going to feel bad and think that they did the wrong thing. A utilitarian will think they did the right thing because of how the outcome appeared to be before the actions took place.

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.

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.