Strengths Of Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a theory in normative ethics supporting the idea that the morally correct course of action is the one that maximizes utility, usually defined as maximizing totally benefit and minimizing suffering. By ‘utility’ in this sense we mean ‘happiness’ or ‘pleasure, or similar. Although there are many varieties,

Libertarians reject Utilitarianism’s concerns for the total social well-being. While utilitarians are willing to restrict the liberty of some for the greater good, libertarians believe that justice consists solely of respect for individual property. If an individual isn’t doing something that interferes with anyone else’s liberty, then no person, group, or government should disturb he or she from living life as desired (not even if doing so would maximize social happiness). They completely disregard concern for an overall social well-being. Using a libertarian’s perspective, a state that taxes its better-off citizens to support the less fortunate ones violates their rights because they have not willingly chosen to do so. In that same context, a theory that forces capitalists to invest in people and natural capital is immoral. Nevertheless, libertarians encourage that people help those in need, as it is a good thing.

Utilitarianism also known as the principle of utility is an ethical theory proposed by early philosophers. This theory implies that actions are only judged by its consequences whether they are good or bad. One should perform a particular action because it will yield the best results for all. This approach also analysis the cost and benefit relationship. The downfall with this theory is that not everyone benefits (Fremgen, 2016).

State executions influence the potential and active criminals by the simple “you kill, we put you to death”. A conclusion drawn from that idea could be that punishment by death would be a prevention of crime. Regrettably the information does not get along with the proposal of deterrence being effective. The truth of the matter is that the death penalty does not affect potential criminals physiologically; the effect brought about by brutalization does not deter criminal activities. An economic writer and Professor Isaac

As Cass R states… “Capital punishment may be morally required, not for retributive reasons, but rather to prevent the taking of innocent lives”. Death penalty is one of those extreme punishments that would create fear in the mind of any person. If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their own life.

Death penalty is a just punishment for crimes committed against the rights of life, freedom and safety of victims. Some people are of the opinion that death should be only being justified with death; this gives the idea that the perpetrator of a crime should be

Compared to the death penalty, life in prison is perceived as an ethical decision, while the choice to inflict the death penalty is irreversible, the latter allows for better judgement in the long run. An article from, the Nation, contrasts the costs between both methods, "carrying out an execution costs at least twice as much-and perhaps five times as much- as sentencing a murderer to life without parole" (David Dow, Life Without Parole: A Different Death Penalty, the Nation). Clearly, if the economy is to be impacted to such an extent, then law enforcement must re-evaluate whether or not the death penalty is actually meaningful in the long run. If the government were to eliminate the funding used for resources towards the death row, and instead facilitate the money elsewhere, it would serve more meaningful purposes. Moreover, life in prison guarantees a, "Swift, severe punishment. It provides justice to survivors of murder victims and allows more resources to be invested in preventing violence." (Is Life in Prison without Parole a Better Option then Death Penalty, ProCon). The answer to seeking justice for one crime, should not be answered for by committing another. If this were a concept applied by people in everyday life, then murder rates would escalate and hold potential for anarchy. On a realistic thought, a majority of the problems related to the death penalty can be avoided through a more humane penance. It also leads to whether or not government institutions should have the warrant to issue capital

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that holds the morally right course of action in any given situation is the course of which yields the greatest balance of benefits over harms. More specifically, utilitarianism’s core idea is that the effects of an action determine whether actions are morally right or wrong. Created with the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), Utilitarianism began in England in the 19th Century. Bentham and Mill built their system of Utilitarianism on ancient hedonism (pursuing physical pleasure and avoiding physical pain). Although both of these philosophers agreed on the basic principals of Utilitarianism they disagreed on what exactly hedonism is.

Utilitarianism, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, states that the morality of an action should be judged based on the extent to which it produces happiness, or the opposite of happiness—an action is good as long as the result is happiness, and deemed bad if it results in pain. A clearer understanding of what Utilitarianism is can be gained by John Stuart Mill’s characterization of what it is not. He states, “I believe that the very imperfect notion ordinarily formed of its meaning, is the chief obstacle which impedes its reception; and that could it be cleared, even from only the grosser misconceptions, the question would be greatly simplified, and a large proportion of its difficulties removed” (Mill, 2007, p. 4). In defining Utilitarianism, Mill dispels common misconceptions that are held about Utilitarianism in order to give the reader a clearer understanding of the doctrine and the rationales that support it.

In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various

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

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, as explained by the philosopher Mill. Given several choices, a utilitarian would pick the morally correct choice by using the Greatest Happiness Principle (487). By looking at whether the consequences of an action will produce the greater happiness for the greater number of people than another action would, one can

Utilitarianism is the ethical belief that the happiness of the greatest number of people is the greatest good. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers that were leading advocates for the utilitarianism that we study today. In order to understand the basis of utilitarianism, one must know what happiness is. John Stuart Mill defines happiness as the intended pleasure and absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure. Utilitarians feel the moral obligation to maximize pleasure for not only themselves, but for as many people as possible. All actions can be determined as right or wrong based on if they produce the maximum amount of happiness. The utilitarian belief that all actions can be determined as right or wrong based only on their repercussions connects utilitarianism to consequentialism. Consequentialism is the belief that an action can be determined morally right or wrong based on its consequences. Just like any other belief system, utilitarianism faces immense amount of praise and criticism.

The idea of Utilitarianism, and the greatest happiness principle were developed by philosophers John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham in the 19th century, and even has lineage back to Epictetus, utilitarianism coincides with the greatest happiness principle. The idea is that you should act in a way that would generate the majority of overall happiness, and focus on the consequences of your actions rather than the action itself (Driver, 2009), this goes along perfectly with the definition to be wise of maximizing benefit, because being wise means maximizing benefit. Furthermore, this means that good actions have good consequences, regardless of the intention of the action. This way, we can ensure that we ensure that we, as a society and individuals, make as many people as happy as possible, and through knowing that you are promoting happiness for others, you yourself can find happiness through that. Therefore, because we as sentient beings, do what we do as we think it will promote our happiness, thinking and acting like a utilitarian will ensure that our actions