What Is Moral Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is clearly a demanding theory. The theory can sometimes fail to live up to expectations, if the demands of the theory have not been maximised for the sum total of welfare in the universe. When there is singular distress some hardships cannot be alleviated, providing that performing an alternative action cannot do even more good. John Mackie argued utilitarianism as an “ethics of fantasy”. A theory that is so demanding must turn out to be counterproductive. If all requirements were to be respected, morality as such would have to be given up. It would be more reasonable; to stick to a morality that imposes less harsh requirements on us. (Tannsjo, p32)

As humans we have made many choices in our lives, some are quick and easy while others are difficult and takes time. But did we ever wonder if our choices are right or wrong? What is morally right? According to utilitarianism's fundamental principle of morality, the right choice is always the one that maximizes utility, it is the one that brings the most happiness and the least suffering. On paper this looks very good and ideal, because let's face it pretty much everyone wants happiness since it brings them pleasure and no one wants to suffer. However despite that, there have been many objections to this theory, one of which says utilitarianism is too high for humanity in which I disagree, this

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.

This makes rule utilitarianism improbable since anyone using utilitarianism will not be omniscient to determine every outcome of an action and understand the impact of all those impacted.

Utilitarianism looks too much towards the future and how society will be impacted but there is no way to really know what will happen. You could not allow an abortion to a poor unloving

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

In order to support the right answer to crucial moral problems, certain philosophers use theory. Theory is an abstract statement formulated to predict, explain, or describe the relationships among concepts or events. Theory is developed and tested by observations and research, using factual data. I’m currently studying the following theories: Intuitionism, Egoism, Utilitarianism, Divine Command Theory, Virtue Ethics, Cultural Relativism, Moral Nihilism, Ethics of Caring, Kantian Ethics and Social Contract Theory. I’ve read each one of them and have noticed their flaws. I was impressed with utilitarianism, which shows the most logically believed theory. I have no doubt utilitarianism is the best moral theory. I chose to defend utilitarianism because it has a major influence on the types of assessment methods. As a health care giver, I believe utilitarianism will be useful in deontological concerns and to evaluate alternative solutions in the health care system. Giving an overall explanation of utilitarianism, defining and contracting act utilitarian and rule utilitarian, and listing some reasons will prove that utilitarianism is the best theory yet.

These cases pose great difficulties for the Utilitarian. (Many (if not all?)have to do with what Jonathan Glover calls THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS DOCTRINE; this states that `in certain contexts, failure to perform an act, with certain foreseen bad consequences of that failure, is morally less bad than to perform a different act which has identical foreseen bad consequences.'(Thus it is worse to KILL someone than merely to LET SOMEONE DIE (or to let someone else kill them. Thus some Catholics would justify the bombing of military targets in The Second World War even when such bombing was bound to cause civilian casualties). The Utilitarian is committed to REJECTING The Acts and Omissions Doctrine; but this seems unacceptable. (Failing to send money to the starving is wrong, but it is not as wrong as sending the starving poisoned food – Philippa Foot).

Chiquita, the viewpoints you exposed breaking down the Utilitarianism ethical system was appreciated. Personally, I agree with the basic premise of the system in certain situations, and not so much in other areas. An example that comes to mind is the transfer of ownership interest in the property without an owner’s knowledge or against his or her will by way of eminent domain. Eminent domain is described as the constitutional right of the government to take privately owned property for a purpose to benefit the general welfare of the public (Kubasek, Brennan, & Browne, 2009). It is also critical that this system is not used in a way that harms the less fortunate or vulnerable in our society. The scripture spoke

In contrast, utilitarianism is an ethics systems based on pleasure and well-being for all parties involved. This systems recommends making the decision that will bring the greatest amount of well-being to the greatest number of people

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.

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).

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

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.

Ethics delves into what ought to be rather than what is. Henry Sidgwick rightly points out a typical flaw made when determining what ought to be done, or in other words, what is ethical. “we frequently prescribe that this or that `ought ' to be done or aimed at without any express reference to an ulterior end,” (1) As John Stuart Mill says “All action is for the sake of some end.” In order to determine what we ought do we must observe what the results will be from that action. What ends are produced? “all the rules of conduct which men prescribe to one another as moral rules are really---though in part unconsciously---prescribed as a means to the general happiness of mankind,” Henry Sidgwick (2)This is basic utilitarianism, The Greatest good for the greatest number. As Utilitarianism is the ethic both my opponent and I subscribe to and is a sound moral philosophy, it ought to be the