Utilitarianism: Action Or The Nature Of Action

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.

Perhaps the biggest flaw of utilitarianism is its seeming disregard for intentions. Given that humans cannot possibly foresee all the consequences of every action, it can be tough to act rightly under utilitarianism. Most people attempt to be morally good by following generally accepted moral standards and by following what they believe will produce the most good. Where utilitarianism falters is in the fact that not all good intentions lead to good results. To clarify this, take an example of a surgeon and a patient. Suppose a surgeon receives a wounded patient who will certainly die if quick action is not taken. Now suppose this surgeon manages to save the patient’s life, only for the patient to later become a serial killer. A utilitarian

Utilitarianism, in the contrary, is based on the principle of utility or usefulness. Utility is what encourages an agent to act in a particular way (Tuckett, 1998). Utility can be explained as maximizing the good like pleasure and happiness and minimizing the bad like pain and evil, all leading to the greater good for all parties involved. It weights the consequences of the actions equally between the ones involved, and the ethical solution would be to follow the greater good for most if not all the parties involved.

No form of Utilitarianism addresses the concerns raised about the intrinsic value and human life, it is a simple, easily exploited mask of morality. While the claims are to maximize happiness, with the reasons being that it wants to increase the aggregate happiness in general, the theory promotes with the inverse to eliminate as much unhappiness as possible. Rather than maximizing the good for all involved, one could easily just attempt to a limit the amount of people affected by whatever deed is done, especially if the deed would be considered bad if people knew about it. By keeping the action to a select

Let’s start by gaining an understanding of what utilitarianism means. The definition given to us earlier in our textbook, Exploring Ethics, in the article, Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism, it defines act utilities as an act that, “is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative”. This goes back to the tedious task of trying to analyze countless number of alternatives and figure out which one brings about the most

Although utilitarianism appears to be a simplistic theory, it in actuality is one of a more complex nature. There are many variables to consider when evaluating a utilitarian path of ethics. For example, whose happiness is more important and should be maximized? When organizations decide which is the better path to take for the group, they put into consideration only their own

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.

Utilitarianism poses an issue when it is used as the sole method for decision making. I do not agree with it at all. There is no way to truly calculate or measure the outcome of a situation. It involves setting aside your values to make a decision based on what will

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,

To fully understand and evaluate the objections raised by those not in favor of Utilitarianism, a better explanation of this ethical code is needed. Championed by men like John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism revolves around the moral standard of the “principle of utility” (122). This principle states that any action which brings about the most overall well-being into the world is both correct and actually morally required, and that by not acting on your “best” option, a person is acting immorally. An attractive aspect of this moral standard, at least to the majority of people, is that under its laws, all people’s happiness is

(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.

Utilitarianism is the moral doctrine that we should always act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions (Shaw & Barry, 62).

The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule

Utilitarians believe that whether an act is right or wrong depends only on the consequences it produces. An act that results in at least as much pleasure or well being as other alternative acts is right, and vice versa. In other words, any act that does not maximize pleasure is morally wrong. Even though utilitarian ethics often clashes with conventional norms, the conflict has no direct moral relevance to the action.

Perhaps the strongest argument in favor of utilitarianism is the fact that it is such a simplistic and straightforward belief system. The central focus to maximize pleasure and happiness avoids confusion and manipulation of utilitarianism. Calculating whether an action is right or wrong is as easy as calculating how much pleasure an pain will result from the action. If the action produces the most