The Curious Enlightenment Of Professor Caritat By Steven Lukes

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.

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,

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.

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.

Versan Aljarrah Mrs. Amanda Cole English 1302 15 April 2015 Annotated Bibliography LeGuin, Ursula K. “The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas.” Literature for composition. Ed. Sylvan Barnet, William Burto, and William E. Cain.

With regard to the economic, social and cultural rights, the African Charter has a limited or “minimalist” approach towards them. Some of rights recognized in the ICESCR are missing; these include the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing ; social security; and the right to the continuous improvement of living conditions. These “fundamental rights for human survival and for living in dignity”

In this essay, I will be writing about utilitarianism and the most important notion that arises from it, which is that an action is morally right only if it maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Cahn, 114). First, I will explain what utilitarianism is, when and by whom it was originally created, and a brief explanation of what it stands for. I will then explain the two different types of classical utilitarianism and explain the differences between the two. Next, I will give two arguments to why the utilitarian position is not satisfactory. I will also be giving possible counter-arguments that the utilitarianisms would have stated and then my own arguments to these counter-arguments. I will then conclude the essay by stating my thesis again and by briefing the reader on the main topics which were covered in this essay.

John Stuart Mill’s defends utilitarianism, an ethical theory according to which, as he puts it, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (155 Ethics). In other words, actions are morally right if they make us happy and actions are morally wrong if they make us unhappy. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which an action is morally right if it increases the amount of pleasure and morally wrong if it decreases the amount of pleasure in the world.

Since its creation during the time of the classic Greek philosophers, the theory of utilitarianism has changed and developed. Various criticisms have been pointed out and expanded upon that expose key flaws in the theory’s design. One criticism that is made is that utilitarianism ignores justice. Critics claim that utilitarian minds would choose to take extreme, and potentially unlawful, action to ensure their quota of reaching the “maximum happiness” of the whole is reached. For example, if an individual decided that killing one person would bring happiness to a large group of people then the act would be considered moral. This, however, is not the case. In no instance is killing considered a “moral” action, but rather the exact opposite. Another criticism that is made is that people assign different values to various mental and physical

In his essay, Utilitarianism Mill elaborates on Utilitarianism as a moral theory and responds to misconceptions about it. Utilitarianism, in Mill’s words, is the view that »actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.«1 In that way, Utilitarianism offers an answer to the fundamental question Ethics is concerned about: ‘How should one live?’ or ‘What is the good or right way to live?’.

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.

Many of the contemporary issues in South Africa can easily be associated with the apartheid laws which devastated the country. The people of South Africa struggle day by day to reverse “the most cruel, yet well-crafted,” horrific tactic “of social engineering.” The concept behind apartheid emerged in 1948 when the nationalist party took over government, and the all-white government enforced “racial segregation under a system of legislation” . The central issues stem from 50 years of apartheid include poverty, income inequality, land ownership rates and many other long term affects that still plague the brunt of the South African population while the small white minority still enjoy much of the wealth, most of the land and opportunities

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.

Before 1994 South Africa was a country based on Apartheid rules and regulations. The Parliament was the highest legislative body and it interpreted laws as it pleased, mostly in favour of ‘white Christians’. Any other race or religion was treated in an unfair and sometimes inhumane way. These laws were mainly based on Roman-Dutch law and influenced by English law.