Essay Of Utilitarianism

It can be considered then, that yes, utilitarianism is demanding. This assignment will endeavour to define the statement “Is Utilitarianism too demanding?” it will also discuss the arguments presented by Geoffrey Scarre.

In today 's society, we face many obstacles in our attempt to achieve the feeling of happiness. As intelligent beings, we try to solve these problems by taking the path that best benefits us. The theory of utilitarianism provides a solution to this but at what cost? What are the benefits and disadvantages of utilitarianism? Is utilitarianism an idea one should live by? What is utilitarianism? I plan on answering these questions within this paper and understand how they relate to everyday life. I will also look at arguments for and against utilitarianism. Then analyze the appealing and unappealing features to determine if utilitarianism should be followed as an absolute rule.

To apply utilitarianism to this ethical controversy one has to evaluate which option would benefit society

Utilitarianism is the most appropriate use in everyday life. Actions done by an individual are done with the well being of all involved. Even if the act is considered immoral the act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism justifies certain actions as morally right. It ultimately focuses on the maximization of everyone’s

In this case, physician-assisted death is the action in question. Once foreseeable, outcomes are determined, utilitarians review the benefits and the consequences of a physician-assisted death for all the parties involved. Then, a course of action is selected that provides the most benefits and reduces the negative consequences. This approach is direct and logical.

For a start, this would be very time consuming and often counter-productive. By the time the individual has weighed up all the possible actions and consequent outcomes the opportunity to act in the maximising of pleasure will most likely have passed. And how then do we even know what causes happiness for other people? When following a rule-utilitarianism guide to right and wrong, all an individual must do is refer to a set of rules which have already been set out with the power to maximise happiness, assuming adherence. An act-utilitarian might argue in response to this that act-utilitarianism is a not a decisions procedure guide but a judgement of what is right and wrong, but even still that would seem to give rule-utilitarianism the upper hand as it appears to provide both a decisions procedure and a moral guidance of right and wrong. (Sinnot-Armstrong, 2003)

From this point of view, it does not appear that risking the lives of the firefighters and the public to attempt to save one person is a valid moral decision. However, the utilitarian maintains the actions should produce the greatest overall utility, determined by weighing consequences, acts, rules, and practice (Hinman, 2013). The most common version of utilitarianism is always to perform the action that will maximize the greatest results or act utilitarianism (Hinman, 2013).

Utilitarianism is a practical doctrine that is widely accepted in modern society’s economics, politic, and ethics. Utilitarian is driven by the pursuit of happiness. For a utilitarian, everything that will be helpful in the pursuit is considered good. In utilitarianism, an action is good or evil based on its consequences on the happiness of an individual and the happiness of the community. Similar to other doctrine, utilitarianism is not without a flaw. Bernard Williams, in his paper Utilitarianism and Integrity, voices his primary concern in regard to utilitarianism by providing two concrete examples to demonstrate how utilitarianism is only concerned about the consequences of the action and not about the means used to get there. Williams argues that utilitarianism fails to acknowledge the integrity of a person because the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to produce the greatest happiness overall.

Utilitarianism attempts to consider the interests of others. However, when focusing on happiness, we fail to consider aspects such as rights and justice (EMP 115). When taking into consideration someone who is wanting to perform a deliberate suicide, overall happiness should not be the only issue to consider. This does not seem plausible since, if happiness is the only factor, anyone could justify any case of Euthanasia on grounds that they were unhappy and the world would be a better place without them. Doctors would be able to justify assisted suicide, which could quickly lead down a slippery slope where anyone who wanted to end their life would be able to do so at any time. Utilitarianism considers the feelings of others, correlating with the minimum concept of morality, which states that we take all individuals involved, into account. However, this theory considers everyone’s happiness equally important, which would take away, the intimacy and bonding from those we have close relationships with, as their happiness is no more important than the stranger walking down the street (EMP 116). Utilitarianism poses a strong theory, however it fails to address moral issues based on reason, as their only consideration for moral issues is the overall happiness achieved.

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

A man ends up in a South American town in front of a group of 20 inhabitants who had protested against the government and were about to be killed as punishment and to serve as warning. Understanding that the man, Jim, had ended up in the town by accident, they decide to honor him as a visitor and give him the privilege of killing one of the Indians. As a result, the other 19 will be set free. The utilitarian response to this is that Jim should kill the one man. The utilitarian must again forget his integrity and act for the greater good. Although his best benefit may be to not kill one man, he must consider the complete picture; he is saving the lives of 19 people.

A Utilitarian standpoint weighs the hedons and dolors in a situation. Ultimately it says that the most ethical thing to do

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it

John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is

The utilitarian view takes this into account where the Natural Law does not take into consideration the long term effects. I believe that the utilitarian view on this issue is a more plausible and realistic viewpoint in today’s society.