Actions that bring more pain than pleasure into the world are bad. Whatever action maximises the balance of pleasure minus pain is the right thing to do. One criticism against utilitarianism is that it seems to license reason to commit acts that forgetting any sort of moral reasoning are wrong according to every persons human rights. An example of this criticism is rape, where the victim’s unhappiness would be discounted as it
The reward/need satisfaction theory of relationship proposed by Byrne & Clore (1970) asserts that if a relationship is seen to offer the prospect of reward (for either party), it is more likely to form – if there is little or no perceived reward, the relationship does not form. Their model is based on the behaviourist principles of operant and classical conditioning. According to the former, behaviour that results in a beneficial outcome makes repetition of this behaviour more likely, whereas if the outcome is undesirable, the behaviour is less likely to be repeated or continued. A relationship that brings perceived advantages is a case of positive reinforcement but the relationship can also be characterised by negative reinforcement if the
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
The first argument, that subjectivism creates infallible moral agents, reads as follows. In subjectivism, to say something is bad is to say one has a bad feeling about it. As one can not be mistaken about their feelings, one can not be mistaken about moral judgements. For those who have encountered someone with very objectionable moral viewpoints however, perhaps violent homophobia or racism, it seems obtuse to suppose such people to be as equally moral as a loving and accepting person. The argument concludes with the claim that, despite the supposed infallibility, people are often mistaken in their moral judgements.
Utilitarianism on the other hand determines the moral value of an act by the consequence of that action. Furthermore, Utilitarianism determines the morality of an action by “how much it contributes to the good of the majority.” (Pollock, 2007) Utilitarianism suggests that a person can predict the consequences of his/her actions. Critics of this doctrine are concerned that this form of ethical structure ignores individual rights and determines the moral value by how the action
“Conversely, a person who has a reputation for scientific misconduct is more likely to be judged harshly for plagiarizing because of his consistent past of unethical behavior (Penslar, Robin, L., 1995). The fact that this ethical theory does not consider a person’s change in moral character; it is one of its weaknesses. Utilitarianism is more concerned with the good for all. “According to this theory an individual’s rights may be infringed upon in order to benefit a greater population.” (2013) Utilitarianism, in terms of ethics, is an individual trying to make a positive change for a larger group, and morally would guide themselves in decision in regard to the group they are associated with or belong to. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism which a person performs the acts that benefit most of the people regardless to a person’s feeling or the laws, and rule utilitarianism which takes the law
(Solomon, Higgins, 2010:235) Soft determinism maintains that we possess the freedom required for moral responsibility, and that this is compatible with determinism, even though determinism is true a person can still be deserving of blame if they perform a wrongful act. (Pereboom, 2009:308) The immense issue I have with soft determinism is that how can you have free will if everything is determined, this contradicts
He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?) and its "purity" (its pleasure won't be followed by pain & vice versa). In considering actions that affect numbers of people, we must also account for its EXTENT. John Stuart Mill adjusted the more hedonistic tendencies in Bentham's philosophy by emphasizing (1) It is not the quantity of pleasure, but the quality of happiness that is central to utilitarianism, (2) the calculus is unreasonable -- qualities cannot be quantified (there is a distinction between 'higher' and 'lower' pleasures), and (3) utilitarianism refers to "the Greatest Happiness Principle" -- it seeks to promote the capability of achieving happiness (higher pleasures) for the most amount of people (this is its "extent"). Act and Rule Utilitarianism We can apply the principle of utility to either PARTICULAR ACTIONS or GENERAL RULES.
Two ethical theories I will compare and contrast in this essay are: Moral Egoism and Utilitarianism. Moral egoism is the belief that an action is only morally justified if the consequences of the action are more favorable than unfavorable to the person or group performing the action. Under the strictest philosophy of moral egoism, rape, murder, theft, dishonesty, and many other things most people consider immoral, are justified. It is always correct for a person to do what is in their self-interest, even if it harms someone else. A person cannot do “whatever they like” because in many cases that would include things that are actually not beneficial to them.
It moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others. In this essay I will examine the Ethical Theory of Utility, its background and its influence upon society to determine if Utilitarianism can be expressed in the phrase “ The greatest good for the greatest number.” U·til·i·tar·i·an·ism 1 [Columbia Encyclopedia] Noun: • The doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. • The doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be... Background Jeremy Bentham was the father of Utilitarianism, he was of the left liberal view, influenced by the French revolution and by many enlightenment thinkers, especially empiricists such as John Locke and David Hume.