The Pros And Cons Of Utilitarianism

John Locke's views on social justice and a just state began with his belief that all humans are governed by what he calls "natural laws" and are protected by their "inalienable personal rights." Our inalienable rights are life, liberty, health, and property. They are considered inalienable rights because they are God-given, and ideally, no other human could ever have the right to remove or threaten

Concerning political philosophy, Nozick was a right-libertarian, which in short means he acknowledged the thought that people own themselves and has a right to private property. While he contended that the state is legitimate, he imagined that just an extremely downsized variant that gives security to people and ensures private property can be legitimized. Nozick's variant of legitimate government is some of the time called the night watchman state which underscores what he saw as its crucial capacity: to secure people and their private property. This implies to appropriately regard contracts and resolve property debate, a judiciary is vital and as for ensuring persons and their property, a police power and a military

(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.

Mill has the view that there is a general misconception regarding the use of the term “Utilitarianism.” Most people refer to it when comparing between wrong and right in a restricted manner that is divergent to pleasure. The opponents of utilitarianism often attach everything with the element of pleasure; thus, contributing to denouncing the theory. However, the proponents of the theory of utilitarianism such as Epicurus and Bentham asserted that it was pleasure in itself and the exclusion of pain. Therefore, the morality principle of utility, which is also referred to as the greatest happiness principle maintains that actions are justified to be right when they produce positive results that are associated with happiness. On the contrary, actions are wrong when they are linked to the negative outcome that tends to suppress happiness. Happiness refers to the absence of pain when there is pleasure, while unhappiness is characterized by pain and lack of pleasure. Basing on the theory of utilitarianism, morality is founded on human activities that are aimed to promote happiness and pleasure as well as suppress pain. That is, humans desire the end of an action to be pleasure.

Welfare is associated with prosperity. Prosperity matters because it contributes to our welfare. In order to clearly understand this concept, utilitarianism needs to be explored. Freedom, on the other hand, seeks to give everyone a fair chance at success. Freedom and justice are intertwined because justice means respecting certain universal human rights, and some of these rights include rights to freedom of speech and religious liberty. The freedom approach to justice has two main domains of rivalry, the laissez-faire camp and the fairness camp. The laissez-faire camp are free market liberations who believe in justice consists in respecting and upholding the voluntary choices made by consenting adults. The fairness camp contains theorists

In the court case of McCullough vs. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that “an unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.” What he meant by this is when a government is given the power to tax its citizens indefinitely, gains the power to destroy personal liberty and society as a whole. One hundred and fifty years later, Robert Nozick, an American libertarian philosophy would farther argue this point by stating that “Taxation of earning from labor is on a par with forced labor [civil service] … This makes them a part owner of you.” By doing so, Nozick equates taxation with civil service. Not only does he maintain

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

Nozick argued that the only form of a legitimate government was one that is as small as possible and limits its actions to only concern the protection of life, liberty, property, and contracts. Nozick argued that people did possess certain natural rights, certain things or actions that can not be done to another individual, even if that action is socially beneficial; these beliefs are similar to the ideas of John Locke, that people have certain rights that can never be taken away under any circumstance. However, one area where Nozick’s beliefs come into contrast with John Locke was that Nozick believed an individual could willingly surrender some of their natural rights. A good example to help understand the way Nozick felt about natural rights, is to think about a boxing match: outside of a boxing match, individuals possess a naturally inherent right not to be punched in the face, but two individuals may, legitimately, voluntarily waive their right to not be punched in the face to partake in a boxing match and are also granted the right to punch the other individual volunteer in the face. So Nozick believed that there are certain innate societal restraints that exist to serve as constraints to keep other individuals in a society from harming

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.