The Theory Of Moral Theory

The statement “The greatest happiness for the greatest number is the measure of right and wrong” was coined by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham as the fundamental axiom of his philosophy. Bentham is respected as the father of Modern Utilitarianism; this strand of ethical thinking has not only been adopted by followers of Bentham, for example John Stuart Mill or Peter Singer, but also by economists and lawyers as a means of creating a fair society, with the highest potential for co-operation. However, although utilitarianism is widely followed and supported, there are many issues that arise due to its subjectivity

Bentham argues that humans only commit actions on the bases of utility, which is the desire to enjoy happiness and prevent pain. He is certain that utility alone governs human morality and that the principles of utilitarianism are morally correct for every situation. Bentham claims that the purpose of morality is to increase the happiness of society and every action should aim to benefit the greatest number. He argues that without attaining happiness for the greatest number, society becomes dysfunction. In Bentham’s perfect utilitarian society, individuals would put aside their personal desires which cause pain to society as a whole in order to promote universal happiness. Bentham, strongly suggests that utilitarianism has no uncertainties, period. After objective analysis under Utilitarianism, before committing any action an individual must first examine the happiness which can be extracted from the action and the potential harms that it can cause, if the action yields more pain to the greatest number it is immoral. Bentham concludes that pain can’t yield happiness and that for an action to be morally correct it must

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that pivots around the belief that morality should be judged by consequence and the way in which an action can be deemed moral or immoral, depends upon the number to which it brings the greatest happiness. A decision can be defined as ethically correct under the theory of Utilitarianism if the moral choice provides the 'greatest good for the greatest number of people', proving that at the core of Utilitarianism are the ideals of pleasure and consequence. Although Utilitarianism provides a useful, simplistic way for making moral decisions,

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

In Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill gives an account for the reasons one must abide by the principles of Utilitarianism. Also referred to as the Greatest-happiness Principle, this doctrine promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. More specifically, Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, holding that the right act is that which yields the greatest net utility, or "the total amount of pleasure minus the total amount of pain", for all individuals affected by said act (Joyce, lecture notes from 03/30).

In this bibliography, Julia Driver approaches the reader with the philosophy of utilitarianism, she also describes to us about how the traditional utilitarian philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill would describe utilitarianism to be identified with what is good, bad, and pleasurable. Julia Driver has been widely recognized for her work in philosophical ethics, she has received young scholar awards from Cornell’s University programs in philosophy. I will use Julia’s views, and thoughts to help sustain my argument, that the utilitarian approach provokes moral assessment and ethical decision-making. Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, and Michael Meyer. " Calculating Consequences: The Utilitarian Approach to Ethics."

As the founder of utilitarianism, Bentham believes that an act is considered “just” if it produces the most happiness and the least pain for the greatest number of people affected directly, or indirectly by that action. For Bentham, happiness means giving sovereignty to pleasure over pain. Contrarily, Kant proposes that only duty and rules should dictate our actions, as the outcome is beyond our control. To Kant the only thing that matters is good will. His theory suggests that an action is either “just” or “unjust” regardless of the consequences of that same action. Bentham tried to attain his theory through hedonism and Kant his through universal maxims, neither theory beneficial to everyone. In addition, Jeremy Bentham’s theory is flawed because it only considers the most happiness caused by a moral action, it neglects minorities. Similarly, Kant fully ignoring the consequences of a moral action is not a worthy idea, because at times, we may have more than one duty or obligation to

On the topic of the conception of right action, deontologists and utilitarian’s had opposing views on what makes an action just. I argue that Bentham’s view of determining right action, that an action is right if it has the tendency to maximize pleasure, is the optimal one because we are not able to determine the motivations of others with absolute certainty.

Mill and Bentham are two important philosophers that have stood by the moral theory of classical utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, a form of hedonism, is defined by Mill as “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals… holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (241). Happiness is the ultimate intrinsically valuable desire according to human nature and consequently pains are intrinsically repulsed. Mill and Bentham have their own perspective on this philosophical concept. This paper will explore and analyze the commonalities that Mill and Bentham share from utilitarianism as well as the conflicts their viewpoints have with each other. Bentham’s work will be critiqued to prove why Mill’s

Jeremy Bentham was one of the first philosophers to present a fully developed system of utilitarianism. He thought that we, as humans, should evaluate the consequences of our actions, determine whether each action is morally right or wrong, and tally the pleasure and pain that comes as a result of our actions. Is it right for me to donate to charity? Is it right for me to cheat on my government test? These questions we ask ourselves fall under Bentham’s theory known as act-utilitarianism because it focuses on the consequences of every action we perform. Bentham argues that the “greatest happiness of the greatest number of people” (Bentham) is how we should determine right from wrong. He also believed “mankind is under the

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

1a. Act Utilitarianism is centered around Bentham’s Unity Principle or Greatest Happiness Principle, which states that “the right action in any situation is the one that produces the greatest possible happiness, for the greatest number possible”. (Manias 129). Bentham concentrated this theory on the background of mathematics- specifically hedonic calculus, because he believed “all pleasures and pains of human beings could be compared on a mathematical scale, with a uniform measurement”; and in addition, that moral decisions should be made off the basis of this, Manias adds. (130). The moral decisions are configured by applying the results from the scale and utilizing them into a 5-step sequential process, which has been slightly modified for the basis of this paper. The steps for this theory include identifying the

Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).

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.

This theory advocates that the actions worth is determined by maximizing utility (pleasure or happiness).it looks at the consequence of an action as to whether the outcome is good to the majority of people affected by it. According to Bentham, utilitarianism is the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle. There are many types of this theory which include act vs. rule, two level, motive, negative and average vs. total. (Clifford G., John C. 2009) In act utilitarianism, when people have to make choices, they should consider the consequences of each choice and then choose that which will generate much pleasure.