Utilitarianism Vs Conflicting Absolutism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory that states something is considered to be right when it does the most good for most the most amount of people (Duignan 2015). This theory doesn’t consider the feelings of the individual; it considers the feelings of the majority (Duignan 2015). Utilitarianism is very different from relativism, which takes into account the totality of circumstances, this philosophical theory states that what is considered to be right or wrong can vary depending on people and society (Rachels 2015).

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.

In this scenario, I think the act utilitarianism best supports my choice. Act utilitarianisms observe precise movements, rather than the general rules governing them, to assess whether they will result in the greatest utility (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013). I am concerned with the consequences of my actions, but I would rather make a decision that benefits the greatest number of people. I think autonomous vehicles should act in ways that preserve the most lives. As people, we react to dangerous situations due to our reflexes. Therefore our judgment at the time of a crisis might not be the best decision. But we respond to a dangerous situation in whatever way we can to avoid a catastrophic outcome. Utilitarian thinking involves

(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.

Both utilitarian thinkers offer interesting and compelling theories to support their end goals of increasing pleasure and reducing pain. The methods conceptualized by each thinker to reach this goal are different and unique, it could be claimed that both are teleological since they argue that the moral character of an action is determined by the final result. Act utilitarianism claims that an act is deemed as right or wrong based on the ramifications of that action thus, the right action is the one that produces the most happiness or pleasure regardless of anything else . Rule utilitarianism claims that an action is deemed as right or wrong according whether the consequences will hurt anyone else thus, the right action is the one that produces happiness for all members of a specific society .

In this essay, I will be writing about utilitarianism and the most important notion that arises from it, which is that an action is morally right only if it maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Cahn, 114). First, I will explain what utilitarianism is, when and by whom it was originally created, and a brief explanation of what it stands for. I will then explain the two different types of classical utilitarianism and explain the differences between the two. Next, I will give two arguments to why the utilitarian position is not satisfactory. I will also be giving possible counter-arguments that the utilitarianisms would have stated and then my own arguments to these counter-arguments. I will then conclude the essay by stating my thesis again and by briefing the reader on the main topics which were covered in this essay.

First and foremost, I believe that mankind possesses inherent political/social values or Natural Laws. In other words, there are inherent fundamental goals and shared needs that are the seeds of the social contract. Furthermore, the natural values of mankind, while in the State of Nature and before any form of social contract or civil society, are more utilitarian/collectivist. For this reason, the “right” thing to do is what will maximize utility and happiness for the greater good in the long run. On one hand, utilitarianism fails to respect individual rights based on Jeremy Bentham’s point of view. On the other hand, respecting individual liberty will lead to the greatest human happiness based on John Stuart Mill’s perspective. Some may argue that the natural values of mankind are more of individual rights and personal property; however, I would consider outside influences, such as society, to be the primary establishment of these values. In fact, I believe that the societal introduction of property rights and individual rights soon increased conflict because of new competition for resources and eventual disputes that arose between individuals or groups. Similar to Rousseau’s point of view, I firmly believe that civilization and institutions brought forth the evils and vices of mankind, while the primitive state of mankind was much more innocent and happy. Although each hypothetical argument cannot be proven by concrete evidence of what mankind was like in our initial

A successful system of government is something rulers have strived to maintain for ages, however, it is impossible to completely control and satisfy every individual in a nation. A new system of government was introduced in the 1600’s by King Louis XIV, known as Absolutism. Absolutism is the principle of complete and unrestricted government power, usually in the hands of one power, a dictator or despot. Although absolutism may momentarily address issues amongst the nation, it is essentially going against our human nature by putting all of our rights into the hands of one imperfect person and restricting the country’s citizens from having a voice in the life of themselves and their own prosperity.

Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness).(http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/). Ethical Relativism is the view that there are no ethical absolutes. It maintains that what is right or wrong depends on the circumstances, the person’s views, culture, etc.

Utilitarianism and Kantianism are some of the popular moral philosophical theories that have been used to deliberate on ethical matters in the society. The business world, systems of government, healthcare system, and other facets of the society are dependent on the provisions of these theories. Utilitarianism and Kantianism were developed by Jeremy Bentham and Immanuel Kant respectively. While these theories can be applied in a beneficial manner in a wide array of areas, it is clear that Kantianism is more effective than utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is more focus on the consequence than the process of action or the nature of the action. That means if the all consequence is same or similar, the different motivation of actions is acceptable although, at sometimes, the motivation of the action is immoral. Also, it is difficult to measure what action can contribute to a good consequence since in the different situation the same actions will contribute some total different results. Thus, under the utilitarianism, when people do alternative, the standard of choosing is which one can produce the maximum happiness; when the happiness is more than the pain, this choice is the best one.

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.

The ethical rule that favors my ethical decisions and perspectives is the Utilitarianism or Consequential Rule. The reason is I favor the benefits for the majority rather than for an individual which this model acts upon my belief. I always try to make correct decisions based on my views of ethics, but I still want my decision to favor the majority of people’s choice. Also, the Utilitarianism model delivers the most benefits for the majority compared to other models while only harming only a few people. Furthermore, I have been influenced by the Utilitarianism model due to most of my professor’s favor the majority decisions compared to the minority decisions. This is the model I would like to make my decisions based on business ethics. In addition,

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 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.