The Pros And Cons Of Utilitarianism

Consequentialism is determining whether actions are justified based on the consequences of the action. Singer’s approach of utilitarianism, a form of consequentialism, is deepened by arguing that the consequences of the action for all life that is able to perceive pleasure or pain must be taken into account in determining whether the action is right or wrong. Deontology takes a different approach to how actions are determined just. According to Regan’s view, an action is not considered right or wrong based on the consequence of the action, but on the action itself, referring to “moral rules and duties” (p.29). Regan focuses on the intrinsic value that pertains to animals and argues that since they have intrinsic value it is morally wrong

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.

(6)You should not kill an innocent (friendless but healthy) person EVEN IF by doing so (and giving his organs to several others) you could increase net happiness.

In competitions, people strive for an honorable win. To act in an unethical way, could cause that win to be considered tarnished. A philosopher named John Stuart Mill believes the idea that quality should be more important than quantity. Honorable wins are viewed more highly than the ability to have many wins. The way a player plays a sport can often define the person themselves. That person may be considered to have qualities that are good, bad, or neutral depending on the way they play. Honor is a word closely associated with the sport of golf. This is a sport unlike many others where only you and your opponent can call the shots and be the referees. This means you must call penalties on yourself sometimes and this can often lead to some

1. Utilitarian’s believe animals should be considered as equally morally relevant as humans because the rights/interests of all beings aside from any form of discrimination or prejudice (speciesism) should be morally relevant. That being said, like humans, non-human animals possess sentience, or the the ability to experience pain and pleasure. Having sentience is enough to say that non human animals therefore also possess interests, interests that are similar (although not exact) to those of a human. These common interests include being pain free, and living a life free from suffering.

Critics of utilitarianism often claim that the theory is too permissive, or something that we ought to do because it is the obvious thing to do for maximizing happiness. Opponents of utilitarianism will argue this by explaining that what creates maximal happiness for some might also impose the complete opposite to others. An example of this is where ten people are in desperate need of organ transplants and we can find one person off the street to fulfill all of those needs. Thus, the obvious thing to achieve maximal happiness would be to kill the individual and give the organs to the ten, or the whole. Although this does seem to infringe upon the moral guidelines of what it is to live in accordance among one another. On the others hand

Utilitarianism enables people who don’t believe in God to lead a moral life without following the Bible. Some people prefer logical reasoning rather than biblical principles. Therefore, we can definitely say utilitarianism can replace revelation.

Happiness and pleasure, which I will use interchangeably, make up an important part of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the idea that an action is either extrinsically or intrinsically good. An action is extrinsically good if and only if it is good as a means, or that its effects are good. One way to determine if something has extrinsic or intrinsic value is to compare two identical worlds, one with the feature in question and one without. If the world with the feature is superior, then the feature has intrinsic value. If the worlds are equal, the feature has extrinsic value because its true value comes from something it causes. For example, chocolate has extrinsic value. I get happiness from chocolate because I like the taste and dark chocolate has health benefits. Moreover, both of those effects are also extrinsically good because the taste of chocolate is pleasing and its health benefits lead to a higher level of happiness. Any goodness that comes from the chocolate comes from the happiness that its taste and health benefits create. Mill believes that the only intrinsic good is pleasure. One would prefer a world with more pleasure to an identical world with little pleasure. Pleasure does not have any other effects. Something has intrinsic value because it is good in and of itself, regardless of its effects.

Of the Ethical theories, Utilitarianism is the strongest because it utilizes empathy in the search for eliminating suffering, is not absolutist, and that it does not defer to God’s will. Utilitarianism was first formulated early on by Epicurus in his philosophy, Epicureanism, and then elaborated on later by his Contemporaries Frances Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill. These Ethical Theorists focused on the idea of having the law serve, rather than hinder, human interests, rather than having humans serve the law’s interest. Louis Pojman describes Utilitarianism as the following in his book How Should We Live?: “The theory that the right action is one that maximizes utility….

Lehman Brothers adopted the utilitarian view of ethics, in which decisions were made based on outcomes and/or consequences. They concerned themselves with making enough profits to satisfy the greedy yearnings of the top few at the top hierarchy of management not minding if their activities were detrimental to the welfare of others. (ukessays.com) This was clearly seen in the mind-boggling case of Coleen Colombo.

Defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, utilitarianism is “a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; specifically: a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Webster). The idea of utilitarianism is founded from the Principle of Utility which has three simple ideas. The first idea is the belief that our actions should have the best possible outcomes. The second idea is the belief that our actions will bring the most amount of benefit and cause the least amount of harm to people. The last idea is the belief that everyone’s happiness is just as

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.

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.

Utilitarianism is a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.