Utilitarian Ethics Essay

Utilitarianism considers the pleasure and pain of every individual affected by an action. It also considers everyone to be equal and does not permit an individual to put their interests or relationships first. After this it attempts to provide an objective, quantitative method for making moral decisions. Utilitarianism is not able to assign quantitative measures to all pleasures and pains, and does not address the issue of some pleasures and pains that cannot or should not be measured-such as human life or human suffering.

Utilitarianism is another theory in which its main objective is to explain the nature of ethics and morality. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which is based upon utility, or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to a utilitarian the morality of act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act as to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.

Utilitarianism is a theory aimed at defining one simple basis that can be applied when making any ethical decision. It is based on a human’s natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain.

British philosopher Jeremy Bentham famously coined the phrase, “It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong.” What defines as a “good” for one person, may not necessarily be the same definition for another. However, Garrett Hardin defines what the “greatest good” is for our society in his essay titled, “Tragedy of the Commons,” in which he argues that in order to preserve the commons we must surrender our inalienable right to breed. Similarly, Peter Singer writes in piece titled, “Animal Liberation,” that, like humans, animals feel pain and therefore should be considered part of our society which requires humans to adjust and conform to meet the demanding needs of this particular group. Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,

Animals cannot posses’ rights, as they do not have the above capacities. The author points out that it doesn’t make sense when humans and nonhuman animals should be treated equally. A human knows that it is morally incorrect to kill a child, but an animal does not. For instance, “ Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be eaten?”

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).

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that seeks to define right and wrong actions based solely on the consequences they produce. By utilitarian standards, an act is determined to be right if and

Animals are bread forcibly, then nourished with specific intent of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our carnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of identity or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent or less substantial than that of feeding a man.

Gary steiner is a professor of philosophy at Bucknell university who studies our relationship with nonhuman animals. He searches for moral high ground to claim in the swamp of animal treatment ethics by claiming that killing an animal is equivalent to killing a human. Accordingly, he has forsworn the use of all animal products in his life. He puts forth several reason for his belief and why nearly everyone continues to slaughter animals. Over the course of his article, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable”, he seems to struggle to understand how anyone could continue to use animal products. Steiner’s bid to take the moral high ground sparked some controversy, however. “The Ethical Choices in What We Eat: Responses to Gary Steiner” is a collection

Utilitarianism, according to Mosser (2013), is an ethical theory that focuses on what is deemed to be fair, common sense and is for the greater good of the

Most humans tend to be in this trouble middle when it comes to their relationship with animals. They are concerned about the cruel ways animals are treated, but still contribute to it by eating animals, keeping them as pets or watching bullfights. They are aware of how unethical these actions are but continue to do it for their personal gain or enjoyment. Some also have complicated reasoning such as thinking it’s acceptable to eat certain types of animals and not others. Typically this type of reasoning varies depending on the region where one lives. For example, most people who live in the United States of America (U.S.A) think it is appalling to eat a dog while it is completely acceptable in places like China. Similarly, it is acceptable to eat beef in the U.S.A, but not in India due to their religious belief of the cow being sacred. These different cultures and religion have resulted in it being acceptable to eat certain animals in some places and unethical to do so in others. To avoid this troubled middle, all animals should be treated equally so that if it is unethical to eat one type of animal it should be unethical to eat all types of animals.

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

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.