What is one of the two alternatives to the consequentialist response to moral dilemmas of trying to minimize the bad and maximize the good, do deontologists provide? Answer Rank the moral duties according to the highest principles Select the choice that has the best consequences Deny that moral dilemmas are possible Do that which exhibits the highest virtue 3
A traditional moralist supports this statement and says that if you love someone what you do should be for their benefit. 3. What does Russell mean by his claim that “the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world…disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves”? By this Russell means that by being good people and having an outward focus we are a part of the world around us and it is a part of us. He says this in contrast to the belief that the only way we can be good is through self-denial, focusing only on the world as opposed to the world and all its people, including ourselves.
When understood properly, Hume’s idea that happiness is only achievable when one has self-esteem is a majorly true theory. This having been said, this theory is still one which requires further analysis. What is self-esteem? Is self-esteem something that one can develop, or is it something uncontrollable? Is self-esteem actually necessary to achieve happiness?
Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
are the two main categories each activity will mostly fall into. But which one is more pleasurable than the other? Well that would most likely depend on the person and whether they are doing it right or enough to make it pleasurable for them. However John Stuart Mill describes it in a different way. According to the “Greatest Happiness Principle,” an action can only be right if it promotes happiness and an action is wrong if it provides the opposite of happiness.
Mill explains that utility can be understood in terms of pleasure and the absence of pain and not just by the usefulness of something (Module 7.1). Utilitarianism at its root is maximizing happiness for as many people as possible. “The Greatest Happiness Principle holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness (Mill 14). Meaning Mill’s ethical theory of utility evaluates the moral worth of an action on whether it increases or decreases happiness (Module 7.1). Mill roots the Greatest Happiness Principle in his theory of life.
Since the true path to happiness, according to Epictetus, is the attainment of virtue, we can all become happier by improving ourselves, whether morally or intellectually. Furthermore, Epictetus' philosophy of happiness would lead us to live less stressful lives if we came to worry about only that which we can control. Still, while I admire Epictetus and his philosophy, I do not believe that most of us could be happy purely through the attainment of virtue. I believe that social support and some level of material possessions are necessary for happiness; we cannot forever strive only for virtue. I do, however, believe that Epictetus had a strong point when he asserted that we should only, rationally-speaking, worry about what we can change -- what good is there in worrying about things we cannot
Explain the difference between Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Why is Rule utilitarianism proposed as an alternative to act-based forms of the theory? Clearly describe each version of utilitarianism and explain which form you think is to be preferred, and why. Utilitarianism was described by Jeremy Bentham as "the greatest happiness principle" [1] Wikipedia defines Utilitarianism as an ethical theory holding that the proper course of action is the one that maximizes the overall "happiness" [2]. From these 2 definitions it is apparent that it is a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can only weigh the morality of an action after knowing all its consequences.
I will analyze my argument through a utilitarian point of view and try to demonstrate why it should be legalized. First off, to be able to understand my argument one must be able to understand the point of view of that of a utilitarian. To make it short and simple for a utilitarian happiness is consequently the result of an action, and if that action produces the greatest pleasure then that action is morally right. Also if the driven action lessens pain and or lessens suffering, then that action is absolutely permissible (And if it is the action that results in the most happiness total, then it is not just permissible, but obligatory.). Knowing this, Cannabis causes millions of Americans pleasure, pain relief, and undeniably is a passed time to “Stoners.” So, why is Cannabis illegal if it is said to have so many benefits?
Although Jeremy Bentham’s act utilitarianism is similar to the amended rule utilitarianism, there are differences between the two theories. These differences will be examined in this essay. Act utilitarianism is a teleological theory. People who believe in this theory say that the goodness of an act is measured through the consequences of that act, and that each moral dilemma/situation is different. For example, if a person was asked a question, and lying would provide greater pleasure/happiness than answering the question truthfully, they would say it would be okay to lie.