Moral Theory Vs Utilitarianism Essay

Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to explain how one can go

Kant's theory is different to utilitarians. It is based on a deontological approach, a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. The key aspect in this is goodwill, which is the ability to act out of duty and principle (Seedhouse, 2001). Morality in this theory is absolute, the actions of right or wrong is independent from consequences. The categorical imperative is the foundation in this theory, it determines if the action is

In order to support the right answer to crucial moral problems, certain philosophers use theory. Theory is an abstract statement formulated to predict, explain, or describe the relationships among concepts or events. Theory is developed and tested by observations and research, using factual data. I’m currently studying the following theories: Intuitionism, Egoism, Utilitarianism, Divine Command Theory, Virtue Ethics, Cultural Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Ethics of Caring, Kantian Ethics and Social Contract Theory. I’ve read each one of them and have noticed their flaws. I was impressed with utilitarianism, which shows the most logically believed theory. I have no doubt utilitarianism is the best moral theory. I chose to defend utilitarianism because it has a major influence on the types of assessment methods. As a health care giver, I believe utilitarianism will be useful in deontological concerns and to evaluate alternative solutions in the health care system. Giving an overall explanation of utilitarianism, defining and contracting act utilitarian and rule utilitarian, and listing some reasons will prove that utilitarianism is the best theory yet.

For utilitarian philosophers, happiness is the supreme value of life. John Stuart Mill defines Utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and privation of pleasure” (Mill, Utilitarianism). This meaning that utilitarianism is determined by the calculation of happiness, in which actions are deemed to be good if they tend to produce pleasure, a form of happiness. On the contrary, they are evil if they tend to promote pain. Not only does Mill regard to the end product of happiness in actions, but also considers the motives of such actions. In his argument, Mill defends the idea that happiness as the underlying basis of morality, and that people desire nothing but happiness.

Although, one main difference between these two theories, is that Kantianism can lead to good or bad consequences, while utilitarianism focuses on the positive outcomes. Very different from these two theories, and from themselves, are consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism is a theory of ethics that judges the morality of an action solely based by its consequences. This theory of consequentialism is like utilitarianism and Kantianism because they both are putting a strong focus into the outcomes of an action. So far, the outcomes have been important, although this ends with another code of ethics, deontology. Deontology instead focuses on the decisions based off duty and obligation, disregarding the consequences of those

Kantian ethics and utilitarianism are at variance on issues of morality and do share a similar end goal on what general ethical outcomes in solving the ills of the world. These two philosophical thoughts examine nature of morality with variant theories. As Kantian ethics are based on the theories propagated by German philosopher Immanuel Kant, utilitarianism on the other hand as has been projected by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mills and many others who share in this school of thought. In this essay, I am going to examine these two contrasting views and provides responses to each objection as provided by their ethos. I will also draw some parallels as identified and make an assessment based on my personal preference.

Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness).(http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/). Ethical Relativism is the view that there are no ethical absolutes. It maintains that what is right or wrong depends on the circumstances, the person’s views, culture, etc.

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

Mill has the view that there is a general misconception regarding the use of the term “Utilitarianism.” Most people refer to it when comparing between wrong and right in a restricted manner that is divergent to pleasure. The opponents of utilitarianism often attach everything with the element of pleasure; thus, contributing to denouncing the theory. However, the proponents of the theory of utilitarianism such as Epicurus and Bentham asserted that it was pleasure in itself and the exclusion of pain. Therefore, the morality principle of utility, which is also referred to as the greatest happiness principle maintains that actions are justified to be right when they produce positive results that are associated with happiness. On the contrary, actions are wrong when they are linked to the negative outcome that tends to suppress happiness. Happiness refers to the absence of pain when there is pleasure, while unhappiness is characterized by pain and lack of pleasure. Basing on the theory of utilitarianism, morality is founded on human activities that are aimed to promote happiness and pleasure as well as suppress pain. That is, humans desire the end of an action to be pleasure.

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

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.

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.

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.

The idea of Utilitarianism, and the greatest happiness principle were developed by philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century, and even has lineage back to Epictetus, utilitarianism coincides with the greatest happiness principle. The idea is that you should act in a way that would generate the majority of overall happiness, and focus on the consequences of your actions rather than the action itself (Driver, 2009), this goes along perfectly with the definition to be wise of maximizing benefit, because being wise means maximizing benefit. Furthermore, this means that good actions have good consequences, regardless of the intention of the action. This way, we can ensure that we ensure that we, as a society and individuals, make as many people as happy as possible, and through knowing that you are promoting happiness for others, you yourself can find happiness through that. Therefore, because we as sentient beings, do what we do as we think it will promote our happiness, thinking and acting like a utilitarian will ensure that our actions

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)