John Q: Principle Of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

There are two different types of utilitarianism that Pojman focuses on, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism is the idea that an action is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative, while rule-utilitarianism is the idea that an action is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself a member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative. Although, both result in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number, the actions taken to produce this result is different in both versions of utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, a decision is quickly made that will have the greatest amount of good as a result for the greatest number, but in rule-utilitarianism the decision has to follow a set of rules (such as don’t lie and don’t cause harm)

The fields of medicine and business are two fields that are derived from different ends of the motive spectrum in terms of cognition (how we think) and economics (how we think about our money). At least they should be. I believe that the underlying issue with the United States healthcare system is that there tends to be a large amount of overlay in these two opposite forms of cognition. Clearly illustrated by Dr. Steven Nissen when he says that, “When medicine became a business, we lost our moral compass.” Medicine was never meant to become a trillion dollar business. This might strike you to be quite a jarring

With Kennedy active as President, it opened the door for many different viewpoints on him. A large portion of the opinions coming from critics, mainly criticizing his religious ways of thinking.

When medical care providers are forced to make decisions and these decisions “violate one of the four principles of medical ethics” so that they can adhere to

Utilitarianism as an ethical theory is seen as 'an act that is morally correct if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people affected by the act'. (Crane, Matten, Chapt. 3). It is a principle that concentrates on the outcome of an act and compares the good outcome with the bad outcome and supports the outcome that brings the greatest amount of good for all stakeholders involved.

As donors, not only receiving compensation for their organs will be their paybacks but the pleasure of doing a good deed by giving the gift of life to patients in need. Organ sales can be done in a fair way respecting the life of both donor and recipient making sure both are going to be fine during and after the transplant. Authorities can monitor people selling their organs and they can create regulations and standards that need to be meet to do this and for no one to take advantage. If the government gets involved in the whole process from start to end then donors shouldn’t have any problems to receive their pay and recipients can be sure the transaction is going to be done under safe conditions. Even tough organ sales are illegal here in the United States the industry has manage to charge costs in other ways. Being the reason why doctors, hospitals, and medical transportation companies are inflating the cost of their services, but then the donor is prohibited of receiving any monetary compensation (Boyer, 2012). Which is unfair that the system created a way for them not to lose money making an income for them but not the donor. Medical costs are increasing more every day (Habka, Mann, Landes & Soto-Gutierrez, 2015). So now not only a patient is hoping for an organ but also hoping their insurance is going to cover the entire treatment while on the wait for a transplant.

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is mainly associated with the principle of Utility summarised by Jeremy Bentham, a social reformer, in 1768. This principle was to apply ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’ theory to all situations that may arise. This theory was that which is good is the act which provides the greatest amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain. This is a teleological theory as the action is determined by the consequences of the action, and not the purpose of the action. The theory considered pleasure and happiness to be the

The utilitarianism approach requires that you decide what course of action needs to be done and evaluate the outcomes of each action. John Q did evaluate the outcomes of his action and in doing so he did not harm anyone in the process. His actions did give him the outcome he wanted saving his sons life.

Thank you for your response and the question. Let me put it in this way, After the surgery, the donor may suffer from temporary disability and cannot work. And also the insurance company may deny coverage or increase their premium. Pretty much like care accident history and insurance coverage. Why should insurance companies be allowed to increase their premium or deny coverage? One way or other, the donor may lose money. Who is going to cover their loss, why should the donor suffer? I feel it is fair and just to compensate the donor.

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

Explain why Mill distinguishes between higher and lower pleasures and assess whether he achieves his aim or not.

The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.

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.