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…
In terms of utilitarianism, actions are evaluated by the outcome. What we should do is to maximize the good outcomes and minimize the bad outcomes. The most promising way of reaching the final decision is to choose the one that would bring about the greatest net benefits to everyone affected by the action once the harms had been taken into account.…
The theory of Utilitarianism was first developed by Jeremy Bentham who was a philosopher of the 18th century. Bentham developed this theory to create a modern and rational approach to morality which would suit the changing society.…
The Utilitarianism theory supports individual capability to foresee the costs of an act. A Utilitarian considers the decision of giving the best profit to a large number of people; this is known to be ethically correct.…
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…
In the chapter Consequentialism and Utilitarianism in the book Global Ethics an Introduction by Heather Widdows explains that Utilitarianism is the ethical rule that is based on the idea of happiness. (Widdows 45) After reading the case study Buying and Selling Body Parts, it has been determined that buying and selling body parts can viewed as unethical in some cultures while some cultures view this the process of buying and selling body parts as acceptable in certain cultures. In this analysis will examine both viewpoints regarding the buying and selling of body parts. In the article Buying and Selling Body Parts the author Heather Widdows mentions that “more people are selling their body parts to people from across the globe; body parts…
A utilitarian believes in the action for the good for all people. This would mean that a Utilitarian would agree with the magistrate’s decision on framing the innocent man. The reason behind this agreement is that since the one man being killed is saving lives and saving chaos it makes it ethical, from a utilitarian standpoint. According to utilitarianism one must consider the consequences of a certain action. So in this case the magistrate must weigh the pros and cons of the decision to execute this man. The magistrate must be a utilitarian because he decided to kill the innocent man in an attempt make the majority of people calm. Utilitarian’s also believe in the idea of attaining happiness or pleasure. Therefore making a decision to kill the man the magistrate must believe that it will make everyone happy, making it morally correct in the magistrate’s eyes.…
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.…
The middle classes required a channel for their humanitarian passions. Unable to aid the victims of social problems such as slum dwellers, the unemployed or children in need, the plight of animals became a surrogate cause to campaign for. This lack of an alternative outlet may have resulted in a disproportionate response to issues related to animal well-being (Turner, 1946)…
Utilitarianism is the philosophical idea of doing the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. It removes human values and emotions from the decision making process. It is more or less a numbers game.…
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…
Utilitarianism is the view that an act is right if it equals the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians describe moral actions as actions that boost something good and lessen something that is bad. Virtue, knowledge, and goodwill are all good but they are only good if they give people a pleasurable existence. Pain is the only thing that is intrinsically bad. Utilitarians focus on the result of an act instead of the inherent nature of the act. An example would be an individual throwing their garbage into the ocean. Utilitarians would say throwing garbage into the ocean is not necessarily bad, but the effect it leaves will cause harm sooner or later and that is what is bad. I do not think that utilitarianism can be an ethical theory. It is simply too difficult to determine whether the utilitarian theory can be justified. The dilemma of trying to focus on a positive outcome or focusing on the actions that we take in order to accomplish the greatest good is too hard to measure.…
Utilitarianism is the idea that an action is morally right if the consequences of the action benefit everyone. In the case where a young man who cheated on his college entrance exam Utilitarianism says that this is not a morally right decision, because while the person who committed the action, the young man in this case, may benefit from the knowledge they gain from that education they got from that school, the action does not benefit the other young man or woman who did not cheat on the test and did not get into this college because the man who cheated took his place. The idea of Utilitarianism in this situation calls for the the young man retake the exam and use the new score instead of the score he got while cheating, because cheating only benefits one person not everybody.…
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…