Examples Of Act Utilitarianism

Libertarians reject Utilitarianism’s concerns for the total social well-being. While utilitarians are willing to restrict the liberty of some for the greater good, libertarians believe that justice consists solely of respect for individual property. If an individual isn’t doing something that interferes with anyone else’s liberty, then no person, group, or government should disturb he or she from living life as desired (not even if doing so would maximize social happiness). They completely disregard concern for an overall social well-being. Using a libertarian’s perspective, a state that taxes its better-off citizens to support the less fortunate ones violates their rights because they have not willingly chosen to do so. In that same context, a theory that forces capitalists to invest in people and natural capital is immoral. Nevertheless, libertarians encourage that people help those in need, as it is a good thing.

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

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

Act utilitarianism says that an action is considered morally right when its outcome is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. It directly produces the greatest overall good. While rule utilitarianism describes how the action which is considered morally right is the one which is covered by a rule. This rule should result in a “favorable balance of good over evil, everyone considered.” Rule utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of generally following a rule, while act utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of individual actions. “Act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism do not use the same methods to make moral evalutations.”

There are two main forms of this theory; rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism judges the rightness of an action by following a set of rules. These rules are set so that they provide the best possible outcome for everyone. For example, a rule utilitarian would say it’s always wrong to lie because, in general, telling the truth brings about the optimal consequences. A utilitarian applies these rules universally and without exception.

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

Act Utilitarianism plays an important role on maximizing benefits for the most people. The moral worth of any action is judged by how much the benefits gained for all perceptive beings. While some individuals may suffer from these actions, utilitarianism holds that the conduct may still be ethical if it does more good for a greater number of people than it harms.

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule

Utilitarianism is also interlinked to Consequentialism, which suggests that a right action is common understanding based on the result of the consequences that said action produces (Driver, J. 2014). One of the prominent objections to Classical/Act Utilitarianism is the Injustice Objection, which views the normative ethical theory as unjust due to not recognising the rights of an individual when their suffering can contribute to the safety and the maximum utility/happiness of the majority population/s and the one sidedness of the consequences in how it maximises utility, which therefore recognises the theory as fallacious. (Piker, A.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it

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.

2. To begin, I will be defining both act and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, you determine the morality of an act by measuring the pleasures and pains for a specific situation Angeles 326). Act utilitarians take into consideration only those affected in the specific situation. However, rule utilitarianism determines the morality of an act “according to the good or bad consequences that ensue from following a general moral rule of conduct…” (Angeles 326). Good examples of those general moral rules are phrases like, never steal or never tell a lie. In any situation, people can use either act or rule utilitarianism to determine the correct course of action.

The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.

Utilitarianism may have its strengths in the sense that it is considering consequences of each situation and making a decision that is most beneficial to the majority. It is based on consequences, as outlined in HDM (p.69), every situation will be different entailing different facts, which will determine the best situation. By measuring the consequences, the most beneficial outcome can be identified. No act can be entirely right or wrong. The idea of democracy also in HDM (p.69), is a good use of utilitarianism, society will choose who they find most suitable to decide for the city, province, or country. Subsequently, maximizing the good for all. This ethical theory can promote happiness, by deciding what is going to be most beneficial and weighing your options, one can choose what makes them most happy and is suitable to their situation.