Jeremy Bentham And John Rawls's Approach To Utilitarianism

153). In essence, utilitarianism is maximizing everyone’s happiness, which can almost be considered a universal acceptance (Boylan, 2009, p. 154). Jeremy Bentham is one of the proponents of modern utilitarianism and states, “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure” (Boylan, 2009, p. 154). In business utilitarianism shares the nonmoral views that the best decision that had no moral conflict would be to maximize profit, which would be the greatest good of the company and its employees (Boylan, 2009, p. 162). Utilitarianism does not always hold true in some minds. Utilitarianism does not take into account motives of the people (Boylan, 2009, p. 165). “If one acts in accord with the general principle and its corollaries, then one is moral” (Boylan, 2009, p. 165).

In my opinion, Bentham’s argument for utilitarianism is unsatisfactory. Firstly, I will provide a background on his argument. Secondly, I will argue against Bentham and provide examples which illustrate the negative consequences of utilitarianism. Thirdly, I will argue that it’s practically impossible to maximize universal happiness.

John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice holds that a rational, mutually disinterested individual in the Original Position and given the task of establishing societal rules to maximise their own happiness throughout life, is liable to choose as their principles of justice a) guaranteed fundamental liberties and b) the nullification of social and economic disparities by universal equality of opportunities, which are to be of greatest benefit to the least advantaged members of society , . Rawls’ system of societal creation has both strengths and weaknesses, but is ultimately sound.

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

John Rawls was an American political and moral philosopher. Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice. In this essay, I will elucidate John Rawls’ views on forming a social contract, the counter-arguments against Rawls’ theory and finally the state of debate on the counter-arguments. John Rawls set out on his discussion on justice and fairness in his book A Theory of Justice 1971. Rawls theory describes a society with free citizens holding equal basic rights regardless of the social status (poor or rich). Each society has its way of attempting to bring about equality in its political and economic systems. The tenets of distributive justice, therefore, act as an ethical guide to the

In this essay, I will talk about the theory of classical utilitarianism. My objection will be about how classical utilitarianism ignores justice and moral rights, and I will argue how this can undermine the theory. I will then discuss how this theory cannot be saved from this objection.

John Rawls is an egalitarian philosopher and his framework of justice as fairness requires adherence to two principles: the original position and the veil of ignorance. Rawls states that governments should not simply provide basic liberties to its citizens but should ensure that the liberties are distributed fairly in society. In the distribution of these basic liberties or primary goods to all people, the two principles and the original position should be adhered to in order to ensure equity . The original position requires people to imagine themselves to be free and equal people who are committed to the principles of social and political justice . By committing to the original position, the two principles of justice can then be followed.

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

One of the most well known ethical theories is the theory of utilitarianism as described by, one of its strongest advocates, John Stuart Mill, in his book Utilitarianism. To put his argument simply, utilitarianism can be summarized as the greatest amount of good for the largest number of people. While, no one can argue that all people strive to be happy, I disagree with the claims that are ultimately supposed to support the theory. Instead of strengthening his argument, segments of the book undermine and put holes in his reasoning, which serve undercut the ideology as a whole. Mill’s claims fail to acknowledge important aspects of humanity such the complexity of our feelings and emotions,

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, as explained by the philosopher Mill. Given several choices, a utilitarian would pick the morally correct choice by using the Greatest Happiness Principle (487). By looking at whether the consequences of an action will produce the greater happiness for the greater number of people than another action would, one can

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.

Here we can note Kymlicka's first objection: although this amendment reasonably accounts for unfair advantages in higher IQ, physical strength etc (which Rawls responds to with his re-distribution to the least advantaged in the "difference principle"), it does not account for unfair disadvantages (in terms of income, lack of health/ability, lack of self-realization and respect: all things which are necessary for "human goodness" according to Rawls) that are uncharacteristic to many of the members of society. Kymlicka states that even Rawls' adjusted theory does not provide a fair and just solution for a physically or mentally

Rawls first reason to take the original position seriously is that everyone recognizes the original position as reasonable. In order to consider a principle fair, one must be rational with certain limitations so, it would not advantage or disadvantage any one else. For example, if a man knew he would become wealthy, he would find the principle of various taxes for welfare to be unjust. This would be the same if a man was poor and would consider the same principle just.

Continuing in my exposition I will now introduce an objection that Hare raised in his writing, this is the objection that I will use and expand in my argument. The lack of recognition for the distinction of every individual person is one of the most common objections to utilitarianism. (Hare 2009, 88) In Hare’s writing he says that this objection should not be accepted because departing