In the article, “Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism”, Louis P. Pojman explained the grounds on which utilitarianism has been attacked and showed some possible response to its defenders which imply his positive attitude towards utilitarianism [1] . In order to argue that thesis, Pojman’s one important premise is the response to the no-rest objection. He believed that the agent should aim at maximizing his or her own happiness as well as other people’s happiness and is best not to worry much about the need of those not in our primary circle.[1] .…
On this topic of gay marriage I’ve chosen the two ethical theories of utilitarianism and the Kantian ethics theory. On the pro side the utilitarianism theory plays a huge role when referring to this topic. Some may argue that it is constitutional and some may say that it just isn’t the right thing to do in this country. With this theory the actions are said to be judged in terms of promotion of human happiness. If someone is happy why it should matter what the law or government thinks. It’s important in addition with this topic because gay marriage is something that has been going on for a couple years now. The news and media has made it obvious, and with this argument there are two sides. Should gay marriage be acted upon as something normal…
Utilitarianism refers to acts in normative ethics that dictates actions to be the best moral example when actions are able to maximize utility for the society or country in which the actions are being taken. In this case, the utility can vary in terms of the meanings that it holds. Utility can be benefit for different individuals. Utility can also be benefit in the form of non-monetary advances that an individual may have. For example, if a person kills a serial killer in a community, he has a utilitarian behavior since the person has allowed the community to have utility, in this case varying in terms of meaning to be similar to safety, of not having a serial killer roaming around that could take someone else’s life without a moment of hesitation.…
Among the most glaring problems that I see with Utilitarianism is its inclusion of animals under the umbrella that blankets this theory. It seems irrefutable that there exists an inordinate number of cases where the consequence that is against the best interest of an animal is favorable to humans, yet that dictating action is one that has been continually taken and condoned by the general public. This is a fundamental challenge, as the Utilitarian philosophy decrees that the pleasure and pain experienced by all individuals, including animals, has equal worth and must be considered when determining the net benefit of an action's consequences.…
Utilitarianism is a teleological theory which looks at the consequences of an act to decide whether it is right or wrong. There are lots of strengths to utilitarianism and not many weaknesses. One of the strengths is that it is a theory which established whether something was good or bad according to the majority of people. Bentham came up with this theory and it is known as the principle of utility. Bentham said ‘Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them to point out what we shall do’. This is the foundation for the principle of utility and it is a strength to utilitarianism as pleasure and pain can determine how people act. Bentham also said the aim of utilitarianism is ‘the greatest good of the greatest number’ and he used the Hedonic Calculus that he created to measure how good an act is and how many people it will affect, this is a major strength of utilitarianism because it tries to please everyone and each individual is equal. A weakness of Bentham’s view was noticed by Mill, Mill said it failed to differentiate humans from animals as animals can share the same pleasures that humans have, so this make human beings equal to animals. Mill also said that Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus was a weakness as it was too impractical as to use it you have to think of the; purity, intensity, certainty, extent, duration and fecundity of an act. In some situations this would be pointless as there might not be time to complete the Hedonic Calculus. For example is your house was on fire and you only had time to save either you cat or your dog you would not be able to think through the Hedonic Calculus as by the time you have your house would be burnt to the ground. This is a weakness to Bentham’s theory but not to utilitarianism because you can still please the majority without looking at the Hedonic Calculus every time you want to complete an act.Bernard…
Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy which seeks to maximize well-being for the largest amount of people. This means that if you can secure pleasure at no moral cost, you should do so. It also means that if you can prevent displeasure for others without sacrificing anything of equal moral value, you should. In Utilitarianism the key is the well-being for the entire population.…
Which is more valuable: a game of push-pin or the study of Latin? Which has greater worth: the life of a single young girl or the lives of an entire community? These are the sorts of questions raised when dealing with the matter of utilitarianism. According to Jeremy Bentham, the father of the theory, the ultimate moral goal of human beings should be to increase pleasure and to decrease pain. To maximize the amount of time spent in content, and minimize the times of depression. And he has a point. Simply stated like that, everyone can agree that that is definitely something they want to achieve. But when his theory is applied to real-life conditions, the varying answers and resulting situations aren 't always applicable with such a cut-and-dry cure-all. Contrary to Bentham 's theory, just because doing something may seem to create an overall better situation than not doing something, it doesn 't necessarily mean that it should be done.…
The definition of utilitarianism is that the morally good thing to do is to pleasure the greatest number of people or animals for the least amount of suffering. For example you can rationalize killing a mass murderer before he kills even more people. Therefore taking the life of one person to save the life of many more.…
Perhaps rationally, many are skeptical that voting is a worthwhile practice. This is why, especially in the months leading up to an election, we are encouraged to vote by signs and posters, social media campaigns, our peers, and our government. Some maintain that voting is a ‘civic duty’ and a meaningful exercise in self-expression. Others contend that we should vote in pursuit of a democratic ideal, and still others argue that we should vote out of respect for those who have defended our rights.…
A staunch believer that few problems are limited to a single perspective or solution, I found the approaches outlined in “A Framework for Thinking Ethically” not only provided a basis to evaluate the other readings, but also offered relevant outlooks for real life situations. I found the multidimensional structure of DeGeorge’s “The Case of the Collapsed Mine” particularly interesting because there were so many dilemmas to evaluate. While analyzing it with my peers, it was common to find a consensus on one aspect, only to have it raise questions on another. On the other hand, Bernard Williams uses “Jim and the Indians” as an argument against the Utilitarian Approach (276), however, most of the people I discussed it with defaulted to that very…
Utilitarian 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. The greatest happiness of all constitutes the standard that determines whether an action is right or wrong. Our belief that we are individuals and society is the net result of our choices. For example, the practice of blowing up rocks to release underground natural gas would not be permitted near residential areas if energy complaints…
I have always been one to side with a utilitarian’s point of view, such as Mill and Bentham. The greatest happiness of the greatest number, or as cold as it may be, sacrificing the few for the good of the many. Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. I will give the best arguments against Utilitarianism, and show in my own opinion, why I think they are wrong.…
First I would like to start off by defining what utilitarian mean well based off of the module a utilitarian is the person who believes in the greater good in other words a person who would take losses and justify it’s worth by the results gained from it. Now in regard to the question on how might utilitarian respond to the situation of the innocent man who was executed in order to keep the citizens from rioting. My answer to that is it would be the exact same result, because of how a utilitarian thinks. In situations like this I would guess that a utilitranian would not even hesitate to kill the innocent man, because a utilitrain would think that excuting the innocent man would be beneficial for the majority of the citizens so he would…
The primary objective of utilitarianism is to provide the greatest amount of happiness, or utility, for the most sentient beings possible (Boss 234). Additionally in utilitarianism, the morality of an action is determined only by its consequences. In other words, intentions are meaningless (Boss 234). Personally, I do not agree with the utilitarian notion that intentions don’t matter because no one can predict the consequences of their actions 100 percent of the time. For instance, most people would agree that giving a homeless person money is the morally right thing to do.…
Among the ethical arguments that we have seen, it is clear that a form of utilitarianism is the best option, that is, we should always do what brings about the best outcome where the outcomes are rated by the amount of good they bring about. The utilitarian argument says that in any given decision, the option that brings about the most good is the right thing to do every time. That being said, the definition of good is extremely important to the soundness of the argument. In this case, the best view of what is good is that of a hedonist, that is, a thing is good if it brings about pleasure and bad if it brings about suffering. To add to this however, I would argue that the best good outcome is the outcome which…