Pros And Cons Of 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.

No form of Utilitarianism addresses the concerns raised about the intrinsic value and human life, it is a simple, easily exploited mask of morality. While the claims are to maximize happiness, with the reasons being that it wants to increase the aggregate happiness in general, the theory promotes with the inverse to eliminate as much unhappiness as possible. Rather than maximizing the good for all involved, one could easily just attempt to a limit the amount of people affected by whatever deed is done, especially if the deed would be considered bad if people knew about it. By keeping the action to a select

Two different forms of utilitarianism are described in our text. The first is called act utilitarianism. According to Shaw and Barry, act utilitarianism states that we must ask ourselves what the consequences of a particular act in a particular situation will be for all those affected (p.60).

Libertarians reject Utilitarianism’s concerns for the total social well-being. While utilitarians are willing to restrict the liberty of some for the greater good, libertarians believe that justice consists solely of respect for individual property. If an individual isn’t doing something that interferes with anyone else’s liberty, then no person, group, or government should disturb he or she from living life as desired (not even if doing so would maximize social happiness). They completely disregard concern for an overall social well-being. Using a libertarian’s perspective, a state that taxes its better-off citizens to support the less fortunate ones violates their rights because they have not willingly chosen to do so. In that same context, a theory that forces capitalists to invest in people and natural capital is immoral. Nevertheless, libertarians encourage that people help those in need, as it is a good thing.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

These cases pose great difficulties for the Utilitarian. (Many (if not all?)have to do with what Jonathan Glover calls THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS DOCTRINE; this states that `in certain contexts, failure to perform an act, with certain foreseen bad consequences of that failure, is morally less bad than to perform a different act which has identical foreseen bad consequences.'(Thus it is worse to KILL someone than merely to LET SOMEONE DIE (or to let someone else kill them. Thus some Catholics would justify the bombing of military targets in The Second World War even when such bombing was bound to cause civilian casualties). The Utilitarian is committed to REJECTING The Acts and Omissions Doctrine; but this seems unacceptable. (Failing to send money to the starving is wrong, but it is not as wrong as sending the starving poisoned food – Philippa Foot).

I will start by explaining Extreme or Act Utilitarianism and Restricted or Rule Utilitarianism and how they are different. Act Utilitarianism is when a persons actions are tested by the consequences that follow and general rules are just a mere rule of thumb (Smart,

As John Stuart Mill explained it “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism. It focuses on the consequences of action. Utilitarian believe that pleasure or happiness is the good to be produced. As Bentham put it “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do” Things such as fame, fortune, education, and freedom may be good, but only to the extent that they produce pleasure or happiness. Unlike Kant’s theory, according to classical utilitarian moral theory, when they evaluate human behavior or practices, they do not consider nature of the behavior nor the motive for which people do what they do, there is no difference between pleasure and happiness. Both terms refer to a kind of psychic state of satisfaction. However, there are different types of pleasure of which humans are capable. As Mill put it, “He who saves a fellow creature from downing does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty or the hope of being paid for his trouble.” It is the result of one’s action that a life is saved that matters morally. (57) In this explanation of utilitarianism, you may have noticed the seeming identification of pleasure and happiness. Utilitarianism is a highly influential moral theory that also has had significant influence on a wide variety of policy assessment methods. It can be quite useful for evaluating alternative health care

Rule utilitarianism principle in a general sense states that certain actions that decrease the utility of the society as a whole can be deemed unethical. In the case where a company actively markets and sells spyware to government agencies and those spyware application are used by such agencies to catch and deter criminals and terrorist; the company’s actions in such a scenario can therefore be deemed ethical within the bounds of rule utilitarianism principle as their actions are helping deter criminal and terrorist acts. When criminals and terrorists intent to harm the society through means of violence their actions are unethical and thus bring harm the natural rights innocent civilians. Their act of violence therefore has a negative impact

As a philosophical approach, utilitarianism generally focuses on the principle of “greatest happiness”. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. From this point of view we can deduct that utilitarianism assign us moral duties and variety of ways for maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain to ensure “greatest happiness principle”. Despite all of moral duties and obligations, utilitarian perspective have many specific challenges that pose several serious threats which

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.

1. Utilitarians believe that “one should so act as to promote the greatest happiness (pleasure) of the greatest number of people” (Angeles 326). However, within the utilitarian community there are major splits in how we are to determine which action brings us the greatest amounts of pleasure. Today I will be focusing on two ways to determine which actions bring the greatest amount of pleasure to a situation: act and rule utilitarianism. I will define both act and rule utilitarianism, give a situation where both can be applied, and respond to an objection of utilitarianism. I will also be discussing why I believe act utilitarianism helps more people than rule utilitarianism, in turn, becoming ‘superior’ to rule utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).

Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.