Sen's Equality Of What?

Consequentialism is a class of ethical theories stating that the consequences of one’s actions are the superior judge as far as to what is right or wrong, moral or immoral. The doctrine of Utilitarianism falls under the umbrella of consequentialism and suggests that actions are right if they are deemed as useful or are for the benefit of the majority. Alongside that, Utilitarians argue that everyone counts and everyone counts equally. This imposes that each being, belonging to the moral community, is owed a certain amount of respect and acknowledgment of needs. As far as who “everyone” truly is and who belongs in the moral community, Utilitarians believe that all beings that can suffer deserve a home in the moral community. Therefore humans and non-human animals, who are both susceptible to suffering, are morally equal.

Utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good (Driver, 2009). Utilitarianism insight is that morally appropriate behavior will not harm others, but instead increase happiness or ‘utility.’ Mill states that “the just society is the one that distributes benefits and burdens in whatever way will produce the greatest social benefits or inflict the lowest social harms” (Velasquez, 2008, p.19). Utilitarianism is appealing because it takes over the model of making decisions that individuals would make concerning their own lives. When a utilitarian perspective is adopted, then the maximum level of wellbeing in society can be achieved. An example of positive utilitarian thinking is the government tax system. The rich may not benefit from having to give up a greater portion of their income than the poor, but society as a whole benefits from this arrangement. The veil of ignorance opposes this view, as it is not seen as ‘equal’ and ‘just’. Behind the veil of ignorance, a utilitarian perspective is not

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.

Utilitarianism also known as the principle of utility is an ethical theory proposed by early philosophers. This theory implies that actions are only judged by its consequences whether they are good or bad. One should perform a particular action because it will yield the best results for all. This approach also analysis the cost and benefit relationship. The downfall with this theory is that not everyone benefits (Fremgen, 2016).

Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most

The three principles of utilitarianism are “1. All ‘pleasures’ or benefits are not equal, 2. The system presumes that one can predict the consequences of one’s actions, and 3. There is little concern for individual rights” (Pollock,

Act Utilitarianism is a long standing and well supported philosophical argument that when boiled down to its most basic elements, can be described as creating “the greatest good for the greatest number” (122). Such was the sentiment of John Stuart Mill, one of act utilitarianism’s (also known as just utilitarianism) greatest pioneers, and promoters. Mills believed that his theory of always acting in a way that achieved the greatest net happiness was both superior to other philosophical theories and also more beneficial to the general public. However, as often occurs in the field of philosophy, there were many detractors to Mill’s ideas. Two specifically strong arguments are known as the doctrine of the swine, as well as man’s lack of time. While both certainly present valid arguments against Utilitarianism, neither is damning of the theory altogether.

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

According to the textbook, “Utilitarianism is a general term for the view that actions and policies should be evaluated on the basis of the benefits and costs they produce for everyone in society” (Velasquez, p78). Basically, it is saying that utilitarianism is focusing

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.

This work has probably received more analysis than any other work on utilitarianism available. However, I seek to do here what many others have been unable to accomplish so far. I hope to, in five paragraphs, cover each of the chapters of Utilitarianism in enough depth to allow any reader to decide whether or not they subscribe to Mill's doctrine, and if so, which part or parts they subscribe to. I do this with the realization that much of Mill's deliberation in the text will be completely gone. I suggest that anyone who seeks to fully understand Mill's work should read it at length.

Utilitarianism is the argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

Another limitation to marginal utility is the variance in prices. Not only from one good to another, but in the same goods over a period of time. Because money is so closely tied with one’s utility, (it is one of the only utilities that doesn’t show any signs of diminishing marginally utility,) price impacts the amount of utility that is received from a good or service. Between two similar products, if one costs significantly less money, it will generally increase utility more. Similarly, if a price of the same product continues to rise, the utility gained from buying it may decrease. Because you’re spending more money on the same product, usually the amount gained will decrease because it may be harder to afford. Although the

In this paper I will present and critically assess the concept of the principle of utility as given by John Stuart Mill. In the essay “What Utilitarianism Is” #, Mill presents the theory of Utilitarianism, which he summarizes in his “utility” or “greatest happiness principle” # (Mill 89). Mill’s focus is based on an action’s resulting “happiness,” # pleasure and absences of pain, or “unhappiness,” # discomfort and the nonexistence of contentment, rather than the intentions involved (Mill 89). After evaluating Mill’s principle, I will then end this essay by discussing my personal opinion about the doctrine and how I believe it can be altered to better suit real-life situations.