What Does Utilitarianism Mean

Kantian ethics is a subcategory of Deontological Ethics, which is the rightness of actions. Kantian ethics uses the concept of categorical imperative, which states that you should act in ways such that you can rationally will your acts to be a universal law. Therefore, that which is good, not that which is bad, can be universalizable. Kant believed that all people should act in a way so that you never treat another person as a means, but only as an end onto themselves. This means that if someone were to perform an act, they would do so without concern for the consequence, but rather because they believe it is in fact what they should do.

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Every single person in America today grew up with the belief that torture is morally wrong. Popular culture, religious point of views, and every other form of culture for many decades has taught that it is a wrongdoing. But is torture really a wrong act to do? To examine the act of torture as either a means or an end we must inquire about whether torture is a means towards justice and therefore morally permissible to practice torture on certain occasions. “Three issues dominate the debates over the morality of torture: (1) Does torture work? (2) Is torture ever morally acceptable? And (3) What should be the state’s policy regarding the use of torture?” (Vaughn, 605). Torture “is the intentional inflicting of severe pain or suffering on people to punish or intimidate them or to extract information from them” (Vaughn, 604). The thought of torture can be a means of promoting justice by using both the Utilitarian view and the Aristotelian view. Using John Stuart Mills concept of utilitarianism, he focuses on the greatest happiness principle which helps us understand his perspective on torture and whether he believes it is acceptable to do so, and Aristotle uses the method of virtue of ethics to helps us better understand if he is for torture. The term torture shall be determined by exploring both philosophers’ definition of justice, what comprises a “just” act, what is considered “unjust”, and then determined if it would be accepted by, or condemned by either of these two

Kant's theory is different to utilitarians. It is based on a deontological approach, a non-consequentialist approach to ethics. The key aspect in this is goodwill, which is the ability to act out of duty and principle (Seedhouse, 2001). Morality in this theory is absolute, the actions of right or wrong is independent from consequences. The categorical imperative is the foundation in this theory, it determines if the action is

Another key strength to the theory is the concentration on motivation. The motive for which an individual acts has more validity then the unknown consequences that lie ahead. According to Kant we are motivated by our duty, and we know that motivation comes from an internal source. Motive provides substance to personal decisions and choices that are made. In order to feel a duty to react or act in a certain manner, an individual uses internal reasoning when making decisions. As moral agents who have the ability to reason Kant’s theory is right on the target. We will consciously make decisions by the things or factors that we are motivated by. I feel that it is safe to say that most people actions are guided by motives whether they are morally correct or not.

Others may take a more utilitarian view, that torture is wrong because it results in suffering for the tortured and fear for the general populace, who have to live every day with the possibility that they might be arrested mistakenly as a terrorist and subjected to torture to extract information they don't know. After all, from a legal perspective, a 'suspected terrorist' is by definition an innocent man - if he's suspected, he hasn't been convicted - and if you have a regime which tortures suspects, that means you have a regime which can torture anyone, for any reason. Utilitarians might, however, support torture if it the considerable evils of torture were truly lesser than the evils that

Some ethic theories make an attempt to answer such questions as torture. Approaching this scenario from a view point of utilitarianism, from my understanding, would justify the act of torture for the greater good. Ethics Approaching Moral Decisions states,

Duty-based ethics are based on duty or obligation. Kant argues that there are higher principles that are good in no matter the time, situation, or culture. Therefore, when faced with

Kant’s duty ethics is quite a flawed theory, yet still the best of the five major theories, in regard of determining what is right or wrong. In a world that claims to be dependent on integration, but filled with egoistic mindsets, it’s hard to point out which code should be used when making moral decisions. Although all five major theories: relativism, egoism, utilitarianism, natural law, and Kant’s duty ethics all have their pros and cons, until a jaw breaking theory is presented I think Kant’s duty ethics is the best moral theory out of the five. Kant’s duty ethics theory, or deontology focuses on “duties, obligation, and rights,” (fiala 111). Unlike relativism, egoism, and utilitarianism which focus on consequence-deontology differs in

Duty for Kant is the underlying role of morality. Our duty and intentions combine to form our will, and the only one thing in the world that is good is a good will. To act according to duty means we are acting according to principals, not according to the final outcome of our actions. Principals is another important factor in this theory, our actions must be congruent with principals that can be made universal. To be universal, the maxim must apply to absolutely everyone, everywhere, and anytime. Another stipulation in Kant’s theory is that we should never treat a person solely as a means to our own ends. It is morally wrong to use someone solely to enhance our own self-interest.

Ethics are an important part of every person and society. Everyone, even young children have some idea of ethics, some idea of what is a ‘good’ and what is a ‘bad’ thing to do. A common approach to ethics is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is, by the definition in the apple dictionary: “the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.”. Although there are many sub-groups of utilitarian ethics, this is the principle of all branches. The differences come in determining what something being useful for the majority really means. It’s easy to see why utilitarianism is popular; it is, at first glance, simple and easy to understand, as well as how it can in some ways be beneficial. After all, if we did what

Immanuel Kant ethical theory is all about finding your duty. Aristole belived that if you were happy you were a moral person. Kant on the otehr hand belives that the highest good is a good will. He believes there are four kinds of actions. The first is an action opposed to duty. The second action is actions in accordance with duty but with no inclinations. This is when it is something a moral person would do but has no inclinations to do that certain act. For example everyone pays there bills but does not want to do that. The third action is actions in accordance with duty with inclinations. The person does the right thing and he wants to do the right thing but only for there own selfish reasons. The fourth actions are actions from duty. According

The main slogan of utilitarianism is as follows, “What makes me happy gives me pleasure, what gives me pleasure makes me happy.” The first sound of this sentence seems very intriguing and may cause many to believe that utilitarianism mean well. However, many basic things can cause pleasure such as; sex, drugs, food, art, etc. Therefore, isn’t it true that too much of one good thing can be terribly bad? Many see sex as a good and pleasurable thing, but there are nymphomaniacs who currently struggle to rid themselves from such an addiction, the same as drug abusers rely on rehab facilities to help them overcome substance abuse. Of course, drugs often save lives, sex is pleasurable, and food enables us to survive, and art is a very astonishing

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.

Kantian ethics emphasizes on two conditions for an action to be morally good. The first, that an action only has moral worth if it is done for the sake of duty. The second is that an action is considered right if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. Kantian ethics then is working on the basis of duty and universality. In failing to recognize the multiple aspects of morality, Kantian ethics shows inadequacy as a moral theory. (Hinman, 2008)