The Is Not A Silver Bullet

The free marketplace represents a superlative model of capitalism, since it denotes the most proficient and profitable way of production. In a free market, economic actors are capable of conducting business devoid of political interferences, such as the burden of a minimum wage, or trade in tariffs. Without these limits, economic actors are abridged to a state of clean competition, driving costs downstairs and resulting in senior quality and lower price products.

In “Your Money or Your Life”, Nicholas Goldberg notes the chief “critics about cost-benefit analysis: that it requires setting dollar values on things that are simply not measurable”. Goldberg argues that “the value of life is immeasurable and that deaths are not mere ‘costs’ that can be coldly calculated by statisticians”. Furthermore, “cost-benefit analysis understates both the value of life and the benefits of government oversight”

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.

To apply utilitarianism to this ethical controversy one has to evaluate which option would benefit society

Humans live in a world in which every day they encounter numerous choices. The way they decide and the outcomes of their decisions define their lives. Their day to day life essentially revolves around the choices they make. As a whole, a community benefits or suffers from the outcomes of its choices. Freedom of choice is the grant to an individual or community to make its own choices out of free will and without restrictions (Pereboom,2003). This is essay will discuss that though freedom choice leads to variety in life, it does not necessarily guarantee satisfaction. It will also argue that although some choice is undoubtedly better than none, more is not always better than less. It will then consider the implications of the paradox of

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,

As Milton Friedman once said, “Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us and history confirms that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power and political hands, it is also a threat to freedom.” Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” takes us into the mind of an economic genius and shows us his beliefs in a free market and the threat it presents to a dictatorship. Friedman, clearly a supporter of the free market, gives examples to show how a free market can aid a society in striving for success, becoming more dominant, and becoming more powerful. Though, at times he does show how a free market has disadvantages and he makes us aware as to how it can aid people in gaining individualism, knowledge, and overall improving a society. A free market is one that the price of a good or service is determined by supply and demand, in theory, rather than by government regulation. Milton’s thoughts and theory is that through a robust free market with political freedom, economic freedom will follow. Showing how economic freedom is a crucial toward the success of political freedom, Friedman’s theory of a free market and the Do Nothing Principle are major themes throughout his book.

In theory a free market would work. It would cause prosperity, if we lived in an idealistic utopia, but blind treatises such as this tend to ignore the facts of life and the core being of human nature. This is the first fallacy of the theory. The fact that there is an essential responsibility being placed on a few people's shoulders without some sort of check and balances system. This takes idealism to a dangerous level, by neglecting objective facts about the likelihood of something to go wrong and dispelling the possibility that the plan might not work and setting up precautions. Close mindedness is the enemy of all plans. Selfishness is the driving force of not only our daily lives but of evolution as whole. Mankind will always seek

The primary form of consequentialism used by the majority of individuals when making ethical decisions is known as Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism weighs the outcomes by whether they create pleasure or pain for the individuals involved. This creates a standard when evaluating the consequences rather than allow the individual to create their own (Kyte 108). Even though there is a plethora of different pleasures and pains of various forms and severities. Since we often choose familiar pleasure, only an individual familiar in both side can voice their opinion based on their understanding of both sides. However, it is not always easy to make accurate predictions on the outcomes and also consider the consequences of every individual that could be effected by the decision (Kyte 120, 122). Even though we understand the concept of consequences, it is not easy to think of every potential one, how they affect others, and whether they cause pleasure or

As Friedman has argued, the role of business is to make money and a cost benefit analysis is a very useful tool in figuring out how to do so. When it comes to morals, however, cost-benefit analysis is much less useful unless one believes in utilitarianism. For other understanding of morality, a person should not be asking “what do I gain and lose” when trying to figure out what to do. People should be asking “what’s the right thing to do”. Cost-benefit analysis can’t really help with that. An examination of the Ford Pinto Case, the cost-benefit analysis, will help raise the awareness and understanding of the diminishing value of ethics in the business world. When Ford conducted the cost-benefit analysis, it analyzed what the potential benefit would be if they fixed every Pinto by installing the baffle piece. The result produced from the cost-benefit analysis may be interpreted to say that it would have cost Ford $137 million to fix the Pintos by installing the baffle piece when it would have cost $49.5 million to leave the cars alone and deal with the expenses of injuries and deaths from the crashes. Ford decided that, because it would be cheaper, it would not install the baffle piece. According to De George, Ford did not tell the consumer that the car was not as safe as others, nor did it inform consumers that they had the option of purchasing the baffle piece (De George, 1995). In Ford contention is that these decision are moral ones, and that cost-benefit analysis is

Choices are an important part of everyone’s lives and the choices we make can reflex who we are as individuals. Choice and the ability to choose are excellent and can represent a sense of freedom. Schwartz’s and Iyengard’s analysis on choice focused on the effects of choice in people and how people react and deal with it. Schwartz’s Official Dogma and explanation of how Americans act in response to choice making is the most relatable to individuals and clearly chows the consequences of too much choice. His analysis can assist to people realize that maybe because we have more choice doesn’t necessarily mean we will make us happier or the best decision will be made. Understanding the consequences of too much choice can possibly make individuals improve the negative effects it can have and make us happier with our

Act Utilitarianism determines a morally right act as the one that produces “the greatest overall utility in its consequences.” (EC, p. 111) In Case 1 (EC, p. 124), it could be argued that Act Utilitarianism would support an individual purchasing a hybrid car due to the overall utility of the consequence outweighing the disutility. However, Act Utilitarianism has weaknesses to accompany its strengths when assessing whether an act is morally right or wrong. One problem of Act Utilitarianism, shown in Case 1 (EC, p. 124), is that it is irrational to expect people to calculate all of the possible consequences and the scope, intensity, duration, or possibilities of buying or not buying a hybrid car. The buyer is expected to scope out and recognize every individual that is affected by his/her act of buying a car. They are also expected to assess the period of time of which the effect of their act lasts and how strong or weak the force of that act is. It’s unrealistic to assume that a buyer will place everyone else’s preferences before his/her or predict the consequences of such action in order to create an overall happiness. The theory does present a solution to strengthen this weakness, which is the ‘rules of thumb.’ Buyers will most likely not purchase a hybrid car while following the ‘rules of thumb’ law due to the immediate pleasure of purchasing a cheaper and more recognizable car. However, its obvious that this solution does not always produce what Act Utilitarianism would

Economic way of looking at life helps individuals to know moral pathways and how to be ethical in economics. In chapter 7, social issues that are discussed, as labor supply in which you find household production, the family, and the life cycle can be well analyzed using economic way of looking at life. In making household decisions, certain factors have to be in mind, such as the economy, time, income and individuals involved.

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.

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.