Omelas Rule Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism considers the pleasure and pain of every individual affected by an action. It also considers everyone to be equal and does not permit an individual to put their interests or relationships first. After this it attempts to provide an objective, quantitative method for making moral decisions. Utilitarianism is not able to assign quantitative measures to all pleasures and pains, and does not address the issue of some pleasures and pains that cannot or should not be measured-such as human life or human suffering.

Perhaps the biggest flaw of utilitarianism is its seeming disregard for intentions. Given that humans cannot possibly foresee all the consequences of every action, it can be tough to act rightly under utilitarianism. Most people attempt to be morally good by following generally accepted moral standards and by following what they believe will produce the most good. Where utilitarianism falters is in the fact that not all good intentions lead to good results. To clarify this, take an example of a surgeon and a patient. Suppose a surgeon receives a wounded patient who will certainly die if quick action is not taken. Now suppose this surgeon manages to save the patient’s life, only for the patient to later become a serial killer. A utilitarian

Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics supporting the idea that the morally correct course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing totally benefit and minimizing suffering. By ‘utility’ in this sense we mean ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure, or similar. Although there are many varieties,

Utilitarianism looks too much towards the future and how society will be impacted but there is no way to really know what will happen. You could not allow an abortion to a poor unloving

Rule utilitarians look at classes of actions, such as lying, giving to charity, and murder, in a two step process. First, a majority of people must accept the action as morally correct. Then, morality can be determined by the results of the action. For example, if a majority of people were to accept murder as good, many people would be hurt. Therefore, murder is morally wrong. Unlike Kantian ethics, where intent is important and consequences are irrelevant, rule utilitarianism solely analyzes the results of a class of actions, regardless of the intent behind them.

     Furthermore, an act-utilitarian may still make great use of moral rules to help make right actions. It may be that moral rules provide a generally reliable guideline for how to act without determining that it is always the right way to act and that they indicate completely wrong action in some cases. This is supported by a passage from the text.

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”.

I agree with the main components of Rule Utilitarianism. I find it natural for it to be plausible, and it is well designed to that very fact. I also find favor with the element of fairness, that a decision is for the benefit of a group rather than partial to only the individual himself. The system of itself is very clear, you greatest quality of happiness, or pleasure. It also isn’t as arbitrary as Act Utilitarianism, but still allows for modifications and adaptations.

In a Utilitarian world the lives and needs of the many in the society are put over the needs of the few. This idea is seen in a lot of popular dystopian movies like the hunger games, divergent, and harry potter. This is a common theme in literature and movies because it is a safe way to picture the crazy “what ifs” in life. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas ” by Ursula Le Guin, all of humanity will be happy and safe if one child is kept neglected and abused for all life. Obviously, in an ideal world the rights of every single person would be important but when not only your happiness is on the line but your children, family, friends, and the rest of the society’s happiness and livelihood is on the line I believe that most people would trade the happiness of one for the happiness of all society. In “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" the true purpose of the article is to debate the ethical ideology between a utilitarian vs. egalitarian society. It is uncomfortable to discuss because there is no obvious answer, no matter what there will be negative consequences. Also, it's a real life question, it’s not something purely fictional, its something a debate that occurs every day and effects the lives of many. Societies are built on the foundation that every person is equal, and in theory this is a wonderful idea.When we live in a world of over 7 billion people, the question has to be asked “if the good of the society is more important than the suffering of one person”. Take

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

2. To begin, I will be defining both act and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, you determine the morality of an act by measuring the pleasures and pains for a specific situation Angeles 326). Act utilitarians take into consideration only those affected in the specific situation. However, rule utilitarianism determines the morality of an act “according to the good or bad consequences that ensue from following a general moral rule of conduct…” (Angeles 326). Good examples of those general moral rules are phrases like, never steal or never tell a lie. In any situation, people can use either act or rule utilitarianism to determine the correct course of action.

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 based on maximizing human welfare, it is seen as the only way to determines the rightness of actions (Duignan, 2015). Furthermore, theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts (Duignan, 2015). Utilitarianism is said to be a strict relationship between the rightness of an action and the amount of pleasure it promotes and pain it prevents. However, in utilitarianism the only thing that gages morality of an action is whether it produces the greatest happiness ( McMillan, n.d.). Furthermore, utilitarian’s think that the moral rightness of an action is dependant of weather it promotes rightness. Rule utilitarian’s on the other hand, favor moral actions that are backed by moral rules. Utilitarianism is seen as morally demanding, as it requires increased moral choices. Rule utilitarianism down side is that it can be seen as rule

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