Philosophical Ethics Study Guide Essay

Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of which states a person moral duty is to promote the most happiness to their society. The only thing that is judge is the person actions. Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing pleasure/god things and decreasing pain ( suffering). Utilitarians reject moral codes or systems that come from authority whether it is based customs, traditions, or religious people. Instead, utilitarians think that what makes a morality be true or justifiable is the joy it brings to the community as a whole. They care about the people happiness above anything else. In one of the examples the Utilitarian a group of people to be feed to hungry lions because it brought joy and

This impossibility of making interpersonal utility comparisons is applicable to most well-being type comparisons. For example, suppose there is a beautiful lady that both Jim and Bob are pursuing. If Jim wins her hand, Bob is harmed and if Bob wins her hand, Jim is harmed. There is no scientific way anyone can determine whose harm is more important and should take precedence over the other.

Consider a case or thought experiment where act utilitarianism seems to give the wrong answer. How do you think the act utilitarian should deal with this case?

James Rachels introduces in his written works, Egoism and Moral Skepticism, two different theories of human nature: psychological egoism and ethical egoism. The theory of psychological egoism refers to the view that all human actions are self-centered. On the other hand, the theory of ethical egoism is the idea that we are not obligated to do anything other than what is in our interest. Most individuals would consistently believe in ethical egoism because most generally care about the well-being of others.

We all have ethics that we follow even if we do not realize that we are following them. They are applied in the decisions we make in are day to day life and even the choices we make for our future. For many their ethics and morals are things that they learn through their upbringing and their life experiences. Others also apply their faith to their already instilled ethics and morals. In the paragraphs below I will be defining unqualified absolutism, conflicting absolutism, and graded absolutism and give examples of different scenarios involving all three ethical systems. Then finally I will conclude by identifying

This paper aims to introduce in a brief yet detailed and objective way the ethical philosophy of Consequentialism. This essay will also analyze an ethical dilemma from the point of view of this ethical theory and resolve the decision-making process based on it.

1. According to Mill, why are some pleasures more worthwhile than others? Mill suggested that “It is …. Better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool dissatisfied.” (pg.118) When he mentioned that some pleasures are more worthwhile than others. He may imply that the pleasures that humans sought out for are of worthwhile if it means not jeopardizing another one’s happiness. Mill goes further and defends utilitarianism that explains that “the supreme principle of morality is to act in order to produce as much happiness as possible.” (pg.118) If the idea was to maximize as much happiness as possible, then it should be noted that any pleasure that does not meet such criteria can lead to an dismantled state for many and for anyone trying to seek a win for an argument.

Act utilitarianism maintain that the correct action in any situation is the one that will have a result which brings benefit and more wellbeing to the most of people, than any other offered actions creates.

Agent – Focused Consequentialism – this will only take into and be more concerned with the actions of a particular individual and their needs, meaning that they are overly

Act utilitarianism is a theory proposed by English philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill during the 19th century. The aforementioned theory states that an action is morally good if its benefits exceed its harms, and correspondingly an action is considered morally bad if its harms exceed its benefits. Act utilitarianism is based upon the principle of utility, which states an action is right, if it increases the total happiness of the affected parties, and wrong if it decreases the total happiness of the affected parties. Therefore, the moral action would be the action that minimizes the decrease in total happiness.

2. Explain in detail the moral theory, rule-utilitarianism. List two actions which are morally impermissible according to this theory, and briefly explain why. (3 points)

If this was universally applied, it would actually contradict itself. A world where everyone was selfish and only sought out their own desires would be impossible. The reason being is that an ethical egoist would not want others to be egoists because in turn he would not be able to fulfill his own desires because everyone else would be pursuing their desires rather than his.

The categorical imperative is universal; everyone ought to do it (79). A categorical imperative cannot have contradictions and is objective and necessary (84). For the categorical imperative to be followed by every person, it must have no conditions restricting it (84). Hypothetical imperatives are conditional and means to something else; these imperatives cannot be universal since they are dependent on something else and are not an independent and universally applicable statement.

However, the idea of utilitarianism is narrowed down into two different types: act and rule. Act utilitarianism is a theory that states that a person’s act is morally right “if and only if” it produces as much happiness as any other actions a person could take at that time. An example of this is going to the movies versus going to the orphanage to do charity service. According to act utilitarianism, if you were to choose from these actions, going to the orphanage to do charity service is morally right because you can produce “more overall happiness in the world”.

Most opponents of Utilitarianism have held that it has implications contrary to their moral intuitions—that considerations of utility, for example, might sometimes sanction the breaking of a promise. Much of the defense of Utilitarian ethics has consisted in answering these objections, either by showing that Utilitarianism does not have the implications that they claim it has or by arguing against the moral intuitions of its opponents. Some Utilitarians, however, have sought to modify the Utilitarian theory to account for the objections.