A reasonable effort must be made to get relevant data to predict the possible consequences of all actions involved, essay on utilitarianism. An Idea of the Utilitarian Perspective When we consider the concept of utilitarianism essay on utilitarianism base it on the pleasures and pains we encounter and how they balance regarding maximizing happiness overall, essay on utilitarianism. It is quite compatible with the principle of utility to recognize that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. Throw a tantrum, get sent to your room. As the practical way to get as close as possible to this ideal, the ethics of utility would command two things. Determining whether the vacation is the right thing to do means weighing Jeffrey's potential vacation pleasure against Whiskers pain at going without food and water. Human life in itself has intrinsic value.
Top 10 Similar Topics
Essay Examples. Utilitarianism is a consequential perspective, in that, a decision in based on the essay on utilitarianism it —-will have on society and what it will generally lead essay on utilitarianism. Also, the utility or usefulness of an action is determined by the amount of happiness that will result. Therefore, no action in itself can be deemed wrong; consequence alone are the important matter. Using this principle, one should consider the possible results of each potential action. One clear flaw of the utilitarian perspective is there that there seems to be a lack of the concept of justice. Their moral principles would justify doing experiments on a single man with no friends or family, essay on utilitarianism.
The justification would still exist in a case in which the experiments would cause a man to die, yet benefits occurred because substantial medical knowledge was obtained. There also seems to be no intrinsic value placed upon human life, yet the value is placed upon the happiness of the greatest of people. Utilitarianism follows one of two categories; act and rule. With Act Utilitarianism, essay on utilitarianism, all possible actions are considered and one must determine which action would yield the most happiness or benefits for the greatest number of people.
However, with act utilitarianism, there really is no way of determining if the right choice of actions was carried out. Also, there is no clear way to be certain on what the results of the actions will be. For example, essay on utilitarianism, there is no way to be sure that a severely impaired infant will not recover enough to live a better life that what was predicted. A reasonable effort must be made to get relevant data to predict the possible consequences of all actions involved. Another form of utilitarianism would be rule utilitarianism. This moral standard suggest that an action is right if it follows a specific rule that has been structured and validated while keeping the principle of utility in mind.
A rule essay on utilitarianism would not concern themselves with the utility of specific or individual cases, but would follow a set of particular rules. One would not have to go through the process of calculations involved in determining maximum utility, but a particular rule would have already addressed the specific issue. Once a rule is created, essay on utilitarianism, it is used to determine whether a particular action is right. Overall, in my opinion, I would by no means follow any form of Utilitarianism. For me, the value lies in the individual human life and not on the success or happiness of the entire group. Human life in itself has intrinsic value.
An action should not occur based on overall happiness of those involved, but should occur because it is our duty to have compassion for every individual human life and should strive to preserve that life whenever possible. As opposed to the consequential viewpoint, the deontology perspective states the morality is based upon following duty, instead of basing decisions solely on consequences. We simply have to understand what our moral duties are and what rules may exist in the process of following such a duty. Duties and obligations must be determined objectively and absolutely, but not subjectively. For Kant, consequences of an action are morally irrelevant.
This would be the direct opposite approach of the utilitarian who bases their decisions on consequences. In addition, according to Kant, an action is right when it follows a rule that satisfies a principle he terms categorical imperative. You could have stated that whenever you are in certain circumstances, you will have the abortion, but when other such circumstances exist, you will not. Such a rule is termed a maxim. The maxims in such cases are personal or subjective, but are candidates for moral rules. If they pass through the screening of categorical imperative, the action can be deemed right. Once a maxim passes the screening, they cease to merely be personal or subjective, but gain status as objective rules of morality that can apply to essay on utilitarianism. A categorical imperative describes what should be done without reference to any consequences.
Kant goes on to state that we should always act as to treat humanity, either yourself or others, always as an end and never only as a means. Kant believes that every rational creature has worth in itself. This is another direct opposition to utilitarianism, in that utilitarianism seek to bring happiness to the masses, essay on utilitarianism, taking away from any value on an individual. Such worth of the individual is inherent based on the fact of possessing rationality. Kant separated duties into two categories; perfect and imperfect. A perfect duty is one we must always observe, while imperfect duty is one we must observe only in certain situations.
A perfect duty exists not to injure someone, but an imperfect duty exists to show love and compassion. However, a essay on utilitarianism finds right in actions that produce the most amount of happiness. To some degree, I would consider myself a Kantian, but not in entirety. However, Ross rejects aspects of both utilitarianism and of Kant. Ross believes that it is important to take consequences into consideration when making a decision, but they should never be the sole reason behind an action. Consequences alone would not essay on utilitarianism a right action. Ross believes that our moral intuitions can supply us with general moral rules. In situations like this, moral intuition can take effect. Ross rejects the idea that absolute, essay on utilitarianism, invariant moral rules can exist.
I have a hard time being able to completely follow an organized rule. All essay on utilitarianism will have essay on utilitarianism and conflicts. In such cases, the other two theories describe things as always being able to be justified through rules, without exception. However, in my opinion, essay on utilitarianism, one must rely on his moral intuition to determine the right to do in some cases. For example, there is an issue regarding whether abortion should be considered murder or not. If considered murder, abortion would be deemed wrong. In my opinion, no matter how many fact were stated or reviewed, there is no essay on utilitarianism cut way of determining whether murder is involved or not. One must intuit that there is indeed murder or not, essay on utilitarianism.
Using my moral intuition I view abortion as being murder and would categorize myself as being pro-life. In regards to embyronic stem cell research, the issue of whether or not an embryo should hold the same rights as any human being exists. However, there are no rules that one could discuss or review in determining the status of the embryo. Essay on utilitarianism to my moral intuition, life begins at conception and the embryo should be considered a human. I have no way of explaining how I concluded that the embryo is a human, no matter how many facts I come up with. I have no way of convincing someone of my viewpoint.
My view is a black wall. I cannot convince you that the wall is black, you just have to see it. Also, essay on utilitarianism, in regards to treating a seriously impaired infant, I take the standpoint that life should preserved and treated at any and all possible costs. There should be no limitation on life and any human life should be given the opportunity to life, no questions asked. One could way the benefits of its life or ending its life. Also, you could argue the quality of life, but none of this really is considered for me in making my judgment. I merely value life so high that my moral intuition states that whenever possible, life must be preserved to the fullest extent. Not everyone would have such a high value on a human life and I would be unable to explain why human life is so valuable.
My decision would, in no way, relate to Kant because in such an instance I would consider both the fact that lying is wrong and the consequences of the lie. Placebos would be such a case I would argue for lying. However, in the case involving the man with cancer, I would take the position that lying would be wrong. Considering the consequences, lying would, in my opinion, cause more trouble than help and whenever possible I believe the doctor has a duty not to lie. In forming this opinion and deciding upon a course of action, essay on utilitarianism, I followed no rule structure and did not rely on consequences alone.
Even in the case involving Alice Nuvo and her not wanting treatment my moral intuition came into play. Under most circumstances, essay on utilitarianism, my position is strictly to say that human life can never be allowed to pass if there is a reasonable means of preserving it. However, there can be no rules for me to follow because I find exceptions to this, and the case of Alice Nuvo would be such a case. I ruled that her autonomy surpasses any medical judgment. If she wants to be allowed to live out her life with her family and inevitably die, it should be her choice. Especially in a case such as this, I really have no way of reviewing my actions and seeing what rules I followed or what past cases I referred to. Once again, my moral intuition lead me to decide for her autonomy.
However, moral intuition does not instantly occur essay on utilitarianism deciding on a case. There must be careful review of every aspect, action, and possible consequences before your moral intuition can decide upon anything. without a doubt, that I am a follower of Ross. Essays Find a Tutor. APA MLA Harvard Vancouver Essay Examples. December Utilitarianism Essay. Copy to Clipboard Reference Copied to Clipboard. Utilitarianism Essay [Internet].
steve jobs biography essay
This theory of higher and lower order pleasures helps Mill defend his overall moral theory -- that we should aim at ambitious forms of human development. The view depends on three assumptions. First we ought to aim to produce the greatest overall happiness. Second, higher order pleasures will produce more overall happiness. Third, higher order pleasures require recognition of rights, human dignity, development, etc. Now, it is an unquestionable fact that the way of life that employs the higher faculties is strongly preferred to the way of life that caters only to the lower ones by people who are equally acquainted with both and equally capable of appreciating and enjoying both.
Few human creatures would agree to be changed into any of the lower animals in return for a promise of the fullest allowance of animal pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no educated person would prefer to be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would rather be selfish and base, even if they were convinced that the fool, the dunce or the rascal is better satisfied with his life than they are with theirs If they ever think they would, it is only in cases of unhappiness so extreme that to escape from it they would exchange their situation for almost any other, however undesirable they may think the other to be.
But the most appropriate label is a sense of dignity. All human beings have this sense in one form or another, and how strongly a person has it is roughly proportional to how well endowed he is with the higher faculties. Anyone who thinks that this preference takes place at a sacrifice of happiness—anyone who denies that the superior being is, other things being anywhere near equal, happier than the inferior one—is confusing two very different ideas, those of happiness and of contentment. It is true of course that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied and thus of being contented; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness that he can look for, given how the world is, is imperfect.
It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool or the pig think otherwise, that is because they know only their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. On a question as to which is the better worth having of two pleasures, or which of two ways of life is the more agreeable to the feelings apart from its moral attributes and from its consequences , the judgment of those who are qualified by knowledge of both must be admitted as final—or, if they differ among themselves, the judgment of the majority among them. And we can be encouraged to accept this judgment concerning the quality of pleasures by the fact that there is no other tribunal to appeal to even on the question of quantity.
What means do we have for deciding which is the more acute of two pains, or the more intense of two pleasurable sensations, other than the collective opinion of those who are familiar with both? What can decide whether a particular kind of pleasure is worth purchasing at the cost of a particular kind of pain, if not the feelings and judgment of those who are experienced in both kinds? So utilitarianism would achieve its end only through the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual got benefit only from the nobleness of others, with his own nobleness serving to reduce his own happiness. Mill also realizes that utilitarianism will be a demanding philosophy -- maximizing happiness might require personal sacrifices for the greater good.
He explains this point:. I would add something that may seem paradoxical: namely that in this present imperfect condition of the world the conscious ability to do without happiness gives the best prospect of bringing about such happiness as is attainable. For nothing except that consciousness can raise a person above the chances of life by making him feel that fate and fortune—let them do their worst! Once he feels that, it frees him from excessive anxiety about the evils of life and lets him calmly develop the sources of satisfaction that are available to him, not concerning himself with the uncertainty regarding how long they will last or the certainty that they will end.
The utilitarian morality does recognise that human beings can sacrifice their own greatest good for the good of others ; it merely refuses to admit that the sacrifice is itself a good. The only self-renunciation that it applauds is devotion to the happiness, or to some of the means to happiness, of others…. Utilitarianism even appears in pop culture! Below is an iconic scene from the film The Incredibles. Here, Lucius Best is preparing for a dinner party with his wife. However, an attack on the city requires him to strap on his supersuit as the hero Frozone.
Unable to find his suit, a short argument ensues between he and his wife. Lucius's position that saving the city is "for the greater good" aligns with Mill's thought that someone's self-sacrifice of their own happiness, such as the dinner party, is justified if it improves the overall wellbeing of society, such as saving the city. How do utilitarians think we should balance our personal obligations to the wellbeing of society? How would you react in this situation? Mill thinks it is critical to living a morally good life that we are unbiased in our consideration of other beings' happiness. Every sentient being's potential pleasure or pain counts.
This principle of equal consideration, Mill argues, is the secret to moral progress. As between his own happiness and that of others, utilitarianism requires him to be as strictly impartial as a disinterested and benevolent spectator. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. As the practical way to get as close as possible to this ideal, the ethics of utility would command two things. This is the true character of the utilitarian morality. In Mill's time, "commonsense" held that women and children experienced pain differently from adult men. Moral consideration depended on what race or class you fell into. Individuals with disabilities were discounted.
The at the time radical proposal of utilitarianism is that a common ability to feel pain and pleasure unites all of us. And leading a philosophical life means basing your decisions about what to do on good reasons, rather than on preferences that you can't find good defenses for. In contemporary debates, utilitarians often find themselves debating how to appropriately extend consideration to non-human creatures. For example, does what species you are matter for moral consideration? You might think that as long as an animal is sentient feels pleasure and pain it's pleasure and pain should count. But what about animals whose experience of the world is very different from ours, like lobsters? Mill thinks that concern for reason ought to push us to more and more allow unbiased utility calculations to guide our decisions.
He does not explicitly consider animal suffering, but does consider how important utilitarian reasoning can be in making more rational policy decisions. One question raised is whether utilitarianism is a better ethic for political deliberations or for individual moral decision making. And what could the difference be? Let us now look at actions that are done from the motive of duty, in direct obedience to the utilitarian principle: it is a misunderstanding of the utilitarian way of thinking to conceive it as implying that people should fix their minds on anything as wide as the world or society in general. The great majority of good actions are intended not for the benefit of the world but for parts of the good of the world, namely the benefit of individuals.
the legitimate and authorised expectations of anyone else. According to the utilitarian ethics the object of virtue is to multiply happiness; for any person except one in a thousand it is only on exceptional occasions that he has it in his power to do this on an extended scale, i. to be a public benefactor; and it is only on these occasions that he is called upon to consider public utility; in every other case he needs to attend only to private utility, the interest or happiness of some few persons. The only people who need to concern themselves regularly about so large an object as society in general are those few whose actions have an influence that extends that far. But the amount of regard for the public interest implied in this kind of thought is no greater than is demanded by every system of morals, for they all demand that one refrain from anything that would obviously be pernicious to society; so there is no basis here for a criticism of utilitarianism in particular.
Utilitarianism is famous infamous? for giving a decisive answer to one of the more famous thought experiments in tradeoff ethics -- The Trolley Problem. Watch the video explaining it. Would you pull the lever? How would a utilitarian reason about the dilemma? Apply the Greatest Happiness Principle and Principle of Equal Consideration to give an argument for or against pulling the lever. Would a utilitarian think you are morally responsible for the deaths if you walk away and do not pull the lever? You might worry that utilitarianism encourages us to always go for happiness now, rather than making sacrifices for more long-term dreams. But Mill thinks that the Greatest Happiness Principle should still encourage us to pursue the greatest happiness over time, which might involve also pursuing many instrumental non-happiness-based goals.
Mill argues that simply because happiness is the end goal of all actions does not preclude other reasons or motivations for those same actions. For instance, while Elizabeth's ultimate motivation to become a gymnast is the happiness she receives from the activity, her individual goals of earning an income, maintaining peak physical fitness, and achieving stardom are also valuable. Mill's argument is simply that they are secondary principles to the primary motivator that is happiness. Because they are rational creatures, sailors go to sea with the calculations already done; and all rational creatures go out on the sea of life with their minds made up on the common questions of right and wrong, as well as on many of the much harder questions of wise and foolish.
If there are human beings who do not get negative sentiments after reflecting on the idea of premeditated murder, or other monstrous acts, it is because those persons have something wrong with them and thus, cannot feel others pain. Desensitization is the contemporary psychological word that describes why some people may not have feeling for the pain of others. People become desensitized making them not feel others pain. This psychological thought matches perfectly well with the utilitarian idea of sentience. However, human nature is universal and a universal ethics rests upon nothing more than human sentiments.
At the center of the utilitarian argument that shifts from the concern we physically have for our personal feelings of pain and pleasure, to others feelings of pain and pleasure, is the belief that this is the nature of human beings. When we hear about calamities happening to others, we may find ourselves flinching or grimacing. However, to go from a claim about our human nature to a moral claim that we ought to do this, and it is correct that we do this, and wrong when we fail to do this, includes an extra step in the argument. This, for instance, is a problem to any racist. If dissimilar races experience equal pleasures and pains, then how come one race sees itself as superior to another race?
If there is actually no difference between our pains and pleasures with others pains and pleasures, then we ought to, just due to consistency, view their suffering as just as significant as ours. It is clear that equality is a main concept involved in this reasoning. Hence, considering ethics along utilitarian line takes us from egoism through altruism to equality. Other critics of utilitarianism argue that it is difficult and impossible to apply its principles. Those that hold that it is difficult to apply utilitarian principles argue that calculating the outcomes for all persons is impractical due to uncertainty and the big number involved.
The truth, however, is that utilitarianism offers a clear way of determining whether an action is moral or not, and this does not involve calculations. As mentioned earlier, a morally right action should have pleasurable consequences. Therefore, the argument that it is difficult to calculate what is right does not hold any water, since it has no harm to the principle of utility. Rather, this is a problem of the human condition. Other critics that oppose the application of utilitarian principles argue that it is not possible to gauge or quantify happiness and there is no defined method of weighing happiness against suffering. However, the truth is that happiness is measurable and comparable through words like happier and happiest. If it were not measurable, then these words would have little meaning.
In conclusion, the theory of utilitarianism is sound, logical and consistent. Utilitarian ethics follow the law of greatest happiness. According to this law, human beings seek to decrease suffering and maximize happiness. Abstract This paper presents a refreshing look at Utilitarianism and furthermore ties the ideas of utilitarianism to the process of Eugenics. Using John Mills ideology, Utilitarianism and Eugenics are first evaluated as separate entities. Utilitarianism is focused around the ideas of right and wrong and their application to decision making.
The ultimate goal of this […]. Medical triage is the use of assignment to patients based on the urgency of their wounds or illnesses to determine the order of treatments on a large number of patients or casualties. Within this paper I shall be explaining the act form of utilitarianism. I will present and evaluate two objections to act utilitarianism based upon how act utilitarianism appears to give the wrong results in certain cases involving rights, criminal justice and distributive justice. These cases being that of framing an innocent and the case of […]. Abstract For this study the focus is on the ethical perspectives of organ donation. In this overview organ donation is defined as a consenting individual whom wanted to donate their organs.
This is determined when the circulatory system in the body is no longer functioning Thoung et el One of the primary perspectives that […]. Hurricane Katrina hit the southern shoreline of the United States on August 28, The focal point of Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans on the morning of August 29, All organizations, businesses, and individuals, regardless of size, geographic location, or social status manage a wide variety of ethical issues on daily basis. For centuries, societies and individuals have struggled to interpret what is the right way to behave and act upon in different circumstances.
Analyzing the decision-making process and the circumstantial factors helps in […]. Right from our childhood, everyone whether parents or teachers tried to teach us that every action of ours has consequences. Clean our room, get extra desserts. Throw a tantrum, get sent to your room. But in reality, we were just being prepared for intellectual philosophical debates, to deal with morality, which is the distinction between […]. John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher and economist, and feminist and civil servant. The utilitarianism was originally writing by Jeremy Bentham and later redeveloped by John Stuart Mill. In the Mill Utilitarianism in the , was to cover the explanation of utilitarian moral theory. In […]. Among the ethic branches, Utilitarianism is a branch that belongs to Consequentialism.
Utilitarianism consists of the major good, to the most amounts of people. This doctrine has three main philosophers, Jeremy Bentham, whom is considered the father of it. James Mill is another notable philosopher and his son, John Stuart Mill, being the latter the […]. The ethics of abortion has been a subject of conversation and controversy, that has been continually argued over many decades. Abortion is the deliberate termination of a fetus or embryo from the womb before it is able to survive independently. It raises ethical questions because it makes us consider when life begins and whether we […].
Utilitarianism philosophy is a consequentialist moral concept. An act is right or wrong from its results. John Stuart Mill was an important scholar in producing this idea of philosophy. This philosophy holds that any activity that results in the higher quantity of happiness in the world is the good act and and any action that […]. Essay examples. Essay topics.
No comments:
Post a Comment