The Billy And Suzy Scenario

The 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. If its consequences bring more net good than those of any alternative course of action, then this action is the right one and the one we should perform. Shaw and Barry talked about the theory of a woman on her death bed. She had $25,000 in cash under her bed and her dying wish was to give that to her nephew. Her nephew was a known

Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.

In Bernard Williams “Utilitarianism & Integrity” he begins by defining Utilitarianism as a philosophical theory that focuses on maximizing happiness as much as possible or in certain ethical dilemmas picking the lesser of two evils. He gives two scenarios of where two men face an ethical dilemma in efforts of demonstrating utilitarianism and objection to consequentialism. Furthermore, Robert Nozick’s “The Experience Machine” and the utilitarian test cases of George and Jim relate since they reject the ideology of hedonism.

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.

When evaluating a specific situation with Act Utilitarianism, one must evaluate every instance of that act. The act has to result in the best consequences for the greatest number of individuals. When evaluating Betty’s choices, it would be the moral choice for her to throw the party if by doing so, the happiness produced would be equal or greater than the other things she could be doing at that time. Betty assumes that Al would be opposed to her throwing a party at his place in his absence, but she never actually asks him. Throwing the party could be a great experience for Betty. She could have an amazing time along with all of her friends. However, the consequences of her actions are unknown, i.e. if Al would be upset. Also, we do not know how the party would turn out. Someone could break something or get injured and the party could be awful and not worth her betraying her friendship to Al for. Based on societal norms, without an extenuating circumstance, Betty’s throwing the party seems deceptive and

Utilitarianism theology implies that morality of an action is dependent on the consequences for the greater good or happiness of others because there is no morale act or rule. There is no right or wrong, so under the utilitarian philosophy if the outcome of the action is good is it moral, but if the outcome is bad, it is immoral (Gaines & Keppeler, 2011). For example, a father is going 20 miles an hour over the speed limit to get his sick child to the hospital and an officer pulls him over and gives him a ticket, it would cause pain because the father is given a citation on top of the fact that the child may not make it to the hospital in time. Providing a ticket would be the unethical solution because it would cause the greatest amount of

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

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).

Concerning the case: If your mother needs $100,000 to have an emergency surgery. At the same time, those amount of money can save 1, 000 children in Haiti. Then, in Utilitarianism, you must save people in Haiti instead of your mother. This case is not concerning the number of people you can save, but it is about: Is your mother’s life is equal worth to a child in Haiti? Utilitarianism seems to have lost touch with reality and social relationship.

A man ends up in a South American town in front of a group of 20 inhabitants who had protested against the government and were about to be killed as punishment and to serve as warning. Understanding that the man, Jim, had ended up in the town by accident, they decide to honor him as a visitor and give him the privilege of killing one of the Indians. As a result, the other 19 will be set free. The utilitarian response to this is that Jim should kill the one man. The utilitarian must again forget his integrity and act for the greater good. Although his best benefit may be to not kill one man, he must consider the complete picture; he is saving the lives of 19 people.

Utilitarians believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the consequences it produces. An act that results in at least as much pleasure or well being as other alternative acts is right, and vice versa. In other words, any act that does not maximize pleasure is morally wrong. Even though utilitarian ethics often clashes with conventional norms, the conflict has no direct moral relevance to the action.

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.

A Utilitarian standpoint weighs the hedons and dolors in a situation. Ultimately it says that the most ethical thing to do

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.

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.