Pros And Disadvantages Of Utilitarianism

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).

Act Utilitarianism plays an important role on maximizing benefits for the most people. The moral worth of any action is judged by how much the benefits gained for all perceptive beings. While some individuals may suffer from these actions, utilitarianism holds that the conduct may still be ethical if it does more good for a greater number of people than it harms.

Utilitarianism is a theory within ethics that states that people should base their actions on what is best for the society. Ethical egoism is the exact opposite; it states that people should generally base their actions off of self-interest. It is impossible to say either utilitarianism or ethical egoism is correct, by looking into two case studies though, we can see how followers of each theory base their decisions.

Should an individual act for his own benefit? Or should he act for the sake of others? In ethics it is assumed that right actions demand an individual to act for the sake of others, this concept is known as altruism. However this view is challenged by the concept of egoism: the idea of putting our own interests to benefit ourselves before

1. Utilitarian’s believe animals should be considered as equally morally relevant as humans because the rights/interests of all beings aside from any form of discrimination or prejudice (speciesism) should be morally relevant. That being said, like humans, non-human animals possess sentience, or the the ability to experience pain and pleasure. Having sentience is enough to say that non human animals therefore also possess interests, interests that are similar (although not exact) to those of a human. These common interests include being pain free, and living a life free from suffering.

This principle can be illustrated by the use of the other famous Utilitarian question posed by Michael Sandel: The Trolley Dilemma. The Trolley Dilemma asks: if given the opportunity arose that the breaks on your train failed, and there were a few people on the tracks ahead of you and only one person on the other set of tracks, would you change course to save the few people and kill the one person or kill the few people and save the one. Answers to this dilemma also vary widely, many people state that they would change course if it meant that would benefit society, for instance that those people on the tracks ahead were very important to society and could greatly

Utilitarianism requires us to make decisions and choices on the basis of what is likely to happen in the future and the course of action would be choosing those individuals who would best ensure survival and the progress of civilization.

Utilitarianism and ethical egoism are a complete opposite of ethical systems. Ethical egoism stating that unselfishness does not exist, and that is the answer to the absolute form of ethics, whereas singer argues that being unselfish is the key to obtaining the true form of righteous morals. I will contend that, Browne’s point of ethics is far superior than of singers, and provides an answer for all morals.

First of all, utilitarianism is a theory wherein an action is right if it tends to promote happiness at the end of the day, and that an action is wrong if it tends to produce the opposite of happiness. This theory that was ‘produced’ by Jeremy

“A utilitarian analysis involves identifying relevant stakeholders, predicting and quantifying the pain and pleasure affecting each stakeholder as a result of the action, and a determination of whether the action contributes more to net happiness than the alternative” (West, 2016).

According to the utilitarian theory it believes that the impartiality, fairness, and greater social harmony requires us to balance our interests with those of others. In doing so, utilitarianism provides an effective antidote for the evils of discrimination based on race, gender, religion, and other unjust criteria. This means utilitarians try to find a way to make themselves and others happy. The value of happiness for example, should be distributed to as many people as possible. Considering this, I agree that using the utilitarianism theory will benefit a society in the distant future.

The main slogan of utilitarianism is as follows, “What makes me happy gives me pleasure, what gives me pleasure makes me happy.” The first sound of this sentence seems very intriguing and may cause many to believe that utilitarianism mean well. However, many basic things can cause pleasure such as; sex, drugs, food, art, etc. Therefore, isn’t it true that too much of one good thing can be terribly bad? Many see sex as a good and pleasurable thing, but there are nymphomaniacs who currently struggle to rid themselves from such an addiction, the same as drug abusers rely on rehab facilities to help them overcome substance abuse. Of course, drugs often save lives, sex is pleasurable, and food enables us to survive, and art is a very astonishing

Utilitarianism is a philosophy in which the ends justify the means, or in which the morality of an action is determined by the function that follows the action. Although Utilitarianism has many good principals that are both logical and appealing, the contradictions of the philosophy make it incompatible with Christian ethics. The moral standards that utilitarianism is supposedly based on only work when a person doesn't consider the personal emotions that might hinder or get in the way of what the end result of the action is. The function may not be changed or diverted according to the philosophy. It also cannot change when someone does not think about the bigger picture in perspective to the function.

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 ethics has two types. One is act utilitarianism and the other is rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism conforms to the description of utilitarianism mentioned above while rule utilitarianism considers also the adherence to the law and fairness of the decision. A rule utilitarian seeks to benefit the most people but through the fairest and most just means available. Therefore, added benefits of rule utilitarianism are that it values justice and includes beneficence at the same time (Rainbow). However, utilitarianism (both act and rule) has numerous flaws like in all other theories. First, there is uncertainty as to the outcome which is the basis of the decision. Outcomes maybe inferred from life experiences or from logical evaluations but no one can be certain of the actual outcome in the future. Wrong prediction of the outcomes resulting to less benefit or more harm, makes the utilitarian decision as unethical. Second, predicted outcomes of different nature like money (tangible) against happiness (intangible) are not really comparable, making a quantified advantage of the other is debatable. Last but not the least, there