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

Rule Utilitarianism came about as a response to the objections toward act utilitarianism. The problems with act utilitarianism are mostly associated with internal support, the lack of support from “our considered moral beliefs” (Timmons 6). Timmons gives different criteria to evaluate a moral theory, and internal support is one of the six. Act utilitarianism gives guidelines that a person would not find to be morally right because of internal support. As a response to this shortcoming, utilitarians modified the moral theory and created rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism should address all the problems that act utilitarianism raises regarding internal support. The problem with rule utilitarianism arises when realizing that the theory

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.

Every country has the requirement to serve to the needs of its citizens. William Uzgalis in “John Locke” says that governments should be providing “life, liberty, health...for its citizens” (Uzgalis). The negative would like to put strain on the word “citizens” in what Uzgalis claims a government should provide. Under this definition there is no obligation to provide for non-citizens, simply the obligation nations towards their citizens. We as the negative negate the resolved for three reasons: 1) Prioritizing safe havens will hurt national interest for countries 2) Prioritizing safe havens will hurt the sovereignty of nations 3) Governments should not and do not prioritize morality in foreign policy.

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 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

Bernard Williams explains that utilitarianism differs in each and every person’s everyday understanding of their morality in at least three ways. These three ways make economics and other individuals to doubt if utilitarianism is true, the whole truth, with matters concerning morality. For everyone who follows the utilitarianism theory, it is true to say that everything done does not matter if the consequences of the action done are not recognized, remote, or mediated from another agent. However, the situation is rather confusing since one cannot be in a position to judge if utilitarianism is

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that says any action is morally right if the consequence is positive or for the better. Likewise, any action is morally wrong if the consequence is negative or for the worse. In simpler words, if an action leads to happiness, joy, betterment of an individual or people at large, reduces pain and suffering or facilitates contentment, then the action is in accordance with utilitarianism or morally right. In the same vein, if an action causes pain, suffering, reduces joy or happiness, facilitates discontentment or causes outright harm, then it is morally wrong and thus against the tenets of utilitarianism. There are two different types of utilitarianism, one is extreme utilitarianism and the other is restricted

Utilitarianism is a theory that was founded by Jeremy Bentham and was later revised by John Stuart Mill. This theory is based on producing the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people and all self-aware beings on Earth. Utilitarianism factors in the amount of bad and good that will be produced by an act. It uses this whether it is during the act or after the act has been done. A utilitarianist believes in one ultimate goal: living a life without pain and a life with many enjoyments. Pain and enjoyments are different to everyone so they are hard to judge sometimes. Mill stated that overall happiness is key and that we as a society should try to maximize quality and quantity of overall happiness.

Several people in the American society have diabetes without forgetting the new cases that arise yearly due to this chronic disease. Regardless of this fact, companies who produce food and beverages, still not aware about how they are negatively attributing to affect customers' health by keeping the amount of sugar high in their products. Not only can that, but the amount of sugar that exists in several companies’ products lead to other diseases such as obesity, stroke, and heart attacks. Consumers’ health should be a priority for all businesses that are seeking to provide customers with their goods. Utilitarianism does not prevent companies from tailoring decisions based on their particular position. Therefore, it is beneficial for them always

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 a theory that delineates the bounds of morality with respect to actions taken by individuals in terms of what produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. The principle seeks to define first the morality of an action, allowing for the morality of a person to be derived based on the intent behind the respective action. The fundamentals of a person’s morality are then presented in a form that labels the person behind a morally defined action as either praiseworthy or blameworthy, a conclusion based directly on the intent behind an action.

For men, there are two avenues to reason. Morality: the appeal to human emotions and a sense of intrinsic good, and logic: the appeal to human understanding of the world. While a number of moral theories exist, none of them is more well documented that Utilitarianism, which focuses on the maximization of total utility. I will discuss the theory initially, and then identify the major problems associated with it. I will conclude with a rationale as to how effective Utilitarianism is as a modern moral theory.

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.

The utilitarian approach focuses on achieving the maximum benefit with the least about of burdens, even if you have to use people as a means to an end. The decision to turn to the U.S. government to bailout GM, declare bankruptcy, and for Rick Wagoner to resign followed the utilitarian approach to making ethical decisions. Wagoner, economic and financial analysts, and banks knew that the GM would not last for much longer as various financial setbacks hindered the company from being able to pay off its debts. While the burdens of the bailout could have potentially costed the company, "37,000 blue-collar jobs and 10,000 white-collar jobs, close to 14 plants over three years, eliminating four of its eight car brands, cut manager salaries 10 percent and all other salaries by 3 to 7 percent, and shift the costs of retiree health insurance to an independent trust," there was a greater risk of 1.1 million people becoming unemployed (Velasquez 188). Once the company declared bankruptcy the U.S. and Canadian governments were able to save the companies in the end. The GM bailout under the principles of utilitarianism was ethical.