Rule Utilitarianism Analysis

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

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

In this paper I will explain how Act Utilitarianism, pure Rule Utilitarianism, and pseudo-Rule Utilitarianism would differ in their reasoning regarding the case of Al and Betty. With each method of reasoning, I evaluate the situation without background or moral assumptions of each character, and then separately with the assumption that while Al was away Betty became chronically ill and has one day left to live.

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.

Person A: Hey, I have not seen you in a while. What have you been up to?

I have always been one to side with a utilitarian’s point of view, such as Mill and Bentham. The greatest happiness of the greatest number, or as cold as it may be, sacrificing the few for the good of the many. Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. I will give the best arguments against Utilitarianism, and show in my own opinion, why I think they are wrong.

This may be considered a more refined version of Act Utilitarianism as it addresses some shortcoming of the earlier ethical theory by universalizing the situation. In this regard, rather than base the ethics of the situation on whether it will result in beneficence for the greatest number of people, it instead bases its ethics on the gain in happiness or loss if everyone worldwide carried out the action that is being judged. As applied to the subject issue, Rule Utilitarianism would ask, “If every corporation/company/organization paid subjected their workers to poor working conditions and poor, unfair wages, would it result in a net loss or gain of happiness?”

Almost every American adults in the United States of America has to fill out a tax return to see if those still owe the government some money, or if those will get some back from the government. A recurring thought in the mind of many of these adults is,” How can my taxes be this high”. The middle class is supposed to be living comfortably and not have to live their lives worrying about money. But, in today’s United States the middle class has to worry about money every single day. The upper class is almost being penalized for earning too much money based on the percentages that they have to hand over to the government. The businesses that once were able to create jobs are now having to cut jobs because of the astronomical percentages

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which acts as a guideline on how people should act in certain situations and was first introduced by a hedonist (pursuer of pleasure) named Jeremy Bentham who put forward the ‘Principle of Utility’ which said “The greatest happiness for the greatest number”. Utilitarianism is a theory which bases on the end purpose (teleological) of achieving pleasure, our decisions should be based on consequences in pursuit of the principle of utility (consequentialist) and is a theory which judges each situation independently (relativistic).

The nature of classical utilitarianism, its responses and objections stemming from the ethical theory are quite complex when carefully analysed, therefore I will be considering a nuanced approach to the argument of whether classical utilitarianism can or cannot be defended against the injustice objection. The reason why I’m approaching the argument from a nuanced perspective is based on context specific examples, which can either affirm or `negate classical utilitarianism’s defense in response to this objection in these cases.

In chapter 9, I found utilitarianism the most intriguing lesson. It is a theory of ethics that assesses actions based on maximizing benefits in reducing the negatives; based on bouncing human interests. It was developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, it is a socially conscious approach to hedonism that holds that the greatest good is to promote happiness and alleviate suffering for the greatest number of people. ( Chaffee, 9.3) Utilitarianism is the most common moral theory practiced in the business world today, to break down what it is basically is morality of an act is judged by it's utility. The greatest utility that it has for the most people;

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.

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.

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.