Utilitarianism or the greatest happiness principle, is mainly characterized by happiness and consequentialism. The measure of good and evil is balanced between individual 's happiness and the happiness of the community. (Sommers & Sommers, 2013) If you treat others how you wish to be treated, you are acting in the greater good for the most amounts of people, and in doing so, you are acting with morals. To act selfishly, you are acting morally wrong. This theory relies on producing the greatest amount of happiness. (Sommers & Sommers, 2013)…
Utilitarian ethical theories are based on one’s ability to expect the concerns of an deed. Utilitarianism’s creed is that the result of any action takes importance over any type of means, this means that Utilitarianisms objective is to help as many individuals as possible even if it were to negatively disturb people along the way so as long as it helped the general populace. Basically, it’s the ends that matter not necessarily the means.…
I will first explicate on the theory of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory which states that that which is right is what brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest maximum number of people. The act that manages to fulfill this criteria is the act that is then morally right. As a result, whenever we consider what is a morally right action to do, we have to keep in mind that the action that would make it so that the accumulated level of happiness in the majority would be higher than the accumulated number of unhappiness in a majority. As well, utilitarianism is bias-free, in that the happiness levels of your close friends and family do not take priority over the happiness levels of the neighbors next door, or of people in countries that you have never visited and will never…
Utilitarianism Act means to do the right action that will benefit a good amount of people over any other option. In the two examples I read from Bernard Williams “A Critique of Utilitarianism” I realized those were two difficult choices these two men had to make. However, if we follow the Utilitarianism Act, George would of taken the job offer and Jim would unfortunately sacrifice one of the protestors to save the rest. By George taking the job offer, it would benefit his family financially and also help his family’s emotional battle. Also, George opposing chemical and biological warfare would mean he wont have much interest compared to the other gentlemen that had much more interest on the subject. This will benefit a large amount of people…
Utilitarianism revolves around the concept of “the end justifies the means.” It believes that outcomes as a result of an action have a greater value compared to the latter, the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. It also states that the most ethical thing to do is to take advantage of happiness for the good of the society. This normative theory considers the overall good for all people and not just a single person.…
Utilitarianism theories hold that the moral worth of actions or practices is determined by their consequences. An action or practice is right if it leads to the best possible balance of good consequences over bad consequences for all affected parties. (Arnold, pp 17)…
The utilitarianism theory of ethics focuses on weighing options for actions and the choice made depends on the course of action that has the best consequences for the individual. This approach gives little consideration to the morals as long as the outcome benefits one’s self, even at the expense of some individuals. Morality issues receive consideration if the action taken is a moral one. For example, a person may not personally believe in war, but a soldier will serve when called because he or she believes in serving his or her country (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2011).…
The main idea of utilitarianism (U) is to create ‘the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of people’. This is similar to Christianity and the golden rule ‘love your neighbour as yourself’. With situation ethics, in a dilemma you should always do the most loving and compassionate thing. However in contrast to the utilitarian idea that you should try and greatest happiness for the most people, Christian ethics would look at everyone in an equal manner, as everyone was made ‘in the image of God’. It says in the bible that God is personal and loving and therefore looks after the vulnerable, whereas utilitarian’s would have to ignore the minority for their theory to work.…
The differences in development between the New England colonies and the Chesapeake or Middle colonies occurred for a many number of reasons. First, they were different people. They come from different places and had different ways of life. Not only did the two regions both have different governing systems, but they were also driven to the New World by different religions or incentives. Even their slight economic differences helped to shape the individuality of the two areas.…
For example, according to James Rachels, “A faithful adherence to the utilitarian standard would require one to give away his or her wealth until they’ve made themselves as poor as the people they’ve been helping” (116). According to utilitarianism, individual happiness and wealth is outweighed by the happiness and wealth, or lack there of, of every citizen in the world. Mr. Rachels continues to say, “The problem is not merely that utilitarianism would require us to give away most of our things. It would also prevent us from carrying on our lives” (117). We all have goals and projects that make our lives meaningful, but an ethic that requires us to promote the general welfare of everyone on Earth would force us to abandon those endeavors. Additionally, Mr. Rachels states, “Utilitarianism disrupts our personal relationships. In practice, none of us are willing to treat everyone truly equally, because that would require giving up our special ties to friends and family” (117). We think of our friends and family as special— not just members of humanity. All of this is inconsistent with impartiality. When one is impartial, he or she misses out on intimacy, love and friendship. Given the problems that utilitarianism faces, it is not a shrewd ethical theory. Now that we have examined deontology’s antithesis, utilitarianism, and have shown it to be a faulty and contradicting ethical theory, we will examine deontology’s doctrine, starting with a few common…
The writings of John Stuart Mill, the father of modern liberalism, promotes ideas of democracy, saying that the interests of the majority is important. One of these ideas is Utilitarianism, which suggests that the correct moral choice is the one that maximizes utility. One example of this being that the death of one person to save multiple lives instead of letting many people die is the best choice in most cases, since it benefits the most people. Peter Singer goes even further and suggests that people are morally obligated to help and give to others above all else until doing so would harm yourself. I will be examining these two beliefs in this essay and ultimately deciding if maximizing utility is always the correct moral action.…
Many people believe that water is just nothing, which in a way they are somewhat correct. Have you ever looked at the label on bottled water? What do you see or better yet what don't you see. You don't see numbers on the nutritional facts of bottled water because water is just that nothing, or is it? Water makes up about 70 percent of the Earth's surface is, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water. The water bottling industry is worth over $65.9 billion dollars. Nestlé Company’s Ice Mountain bottled water plant is one of the newest companies to embark on the billion dollar industry. Nestle’ Ice Mountain company has invested $100 million to build a new 410,000-square-foot bottling plant in Mecosta County, Michigan. There is some controversy about how much is to be pumped out of the springs. Locals are staying that 262 million gallons a year is too much. Who is right? In this paper I am going to explore this case from three different perspectives utilitarian approach, the libertarian alternative, and the Rawlsian theories of justice. Then I will choose which approach I found the most helpful.…
Utilitarianism is a relativist, consequentialist and teleological system of ethics based on the idea of ‘utility’. This means usefulness and utilitarian suggest that everyone should be the most useful thing. The theory was devised by Jeremy Bentham who said “an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number”. He believed human beings are motivated by pleasure and pain.…
Utilitarianism treats human and nonhuman animal as same species, Sharfer-Landau (2015) explained, “utilitarians argue that animals are member of the moral community.” A qualification to be the moral community is to be able to suffer. Although nonhuman animal cannot talk like human nor express their feeling freely like human, yet they do suffer like human. Therefore, utilitarians consider human and nonhuman animal both as the moral community.…
But this brings up an issue: most of morality is considered partial. It makes sense to care more about your children, family, and friends than complete strangers, but utilitarianism rejects this. If giving money, time, etc. to total strangers while “sacrificing the important needs of friends and family” results in the least amount harm than you are morally obligated to do so. We need to count everyone’s well being and interests equally. But this could lead to disastrous results. What if a majority of society benefits from an atrocity such as slavery? Utilitarianism would require us to allow it even if everyone’s interests were equally, since there would be a large amount of ‘benefit.’…