The Moral Code : Utilitarianism And Rule Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics supporting the idea that the morally correct course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing totally benefit and minimizing suffering. By ‘utility’ in this sense we mean ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure, or similar. Although there are many varieties,

According to Shafer-Landau, act utilitarianism holds “that an action is morally required just because it does more to improve overall well-being than any other action you could have done in the circumstances” (122). Doing anything that does not provide well-being is not inherently moral, thus utilitarianism requires one to act with well-being in mind at all times. Furthermore, one has to be impartial, meaning no bias can be involved regarding the group of people one affects. Some find this to be a desirable aspect of utilitarianism, while others use this as a premise to object utilitarianism.

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?

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,

In this paper, I am going to explain what two moral theories I mainly use to make a moral decision. In this paper, I used the textbook to help me figure out what moral theories are and it helped me decide which moral theories to use that best fit me when I make moral decisions. The two moral theories that I chose to highlight in this paper are utilitarianism and cultural relativism because I believe that they are the two that best fit me when I make a moral decision. The definition of morals is “a person’s standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is or is not acceptable for them to do”. Morals are an important thing to have because it is good to know what is and isn’t

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions (Shaw & Barry, 62).

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that seeks to define right and wrong actions based solely on the consequences they produce. By utilitarian standards, an act is determined to be right if and

For example, there is a hunter who wonders if it is morally acceptable to kill a deer. Act Utilitarianism analyzes the effects of this one action to decide if it is moral by assigning a value to the amount of pleasure and pain each individual involved will experience. In this case the hunter and his family will experience the pleasure of having food from eating the deer, many of the neighbors of the hunter will experience pleasure by having the deer off their property, and the deer’s family will experience the pain of the loss of a family member. If the outcome is that the net value of pleasure is greater than the pain caused by the killing of the deer, it is morally right for the hunter to kill it.

When analyzing moral theories, the reader should know that morals pertains to ethics and understand the basis behind its meaning. According to Merriam-Webster (n.d.), moral is defined as what is considered as right and wrong by most people and agreeing with a standard of right behavior. Reviewing the various normative theories of moral frameworks, the two that were approximal to my personal philosophy are Stoic Virtue Ethics and Categorical Imperative. In this article, the two frameworks will be compared and contrasted relating to my philosophy of living a virtuous life through helping others with no benefit of gaining something in return. In addition, living a life that we treat others in a respectful manner, so they return the same action. Once the theories are analyzed, the goal is to determine if there are similarities to my personal philosophy or a drastic difference from what is considered as

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.

Post-conventional morality is consisting of social and individual rights and universal principles. This stage of morality brings a hedonistic view of self and other as well as pure-justice. Where am I truly standing on? Utilitarian? Kantian? Or in between of both? Previous ethics papers have put me into thinking who I really am and where I truly stand in moral code. I have dug my deepest self and explored types of ideas and beliefs that I embraced. Thus, before I had actually thought about what I truly care and role I want to play in this society, I believed that I was utilitarian. Although, being utilitarian and my decisions did not exactly matched. The nurture part of the life have shaped my moral code in more complicated form. Therefore, the conclusion that I have come up with my moral code is heavily influenced by Immanuel Kant, Buddhism, and my personal religion: Spiritualistic Agnostic.

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.