The various forms present two major problems; the problem of justice, and the issue of having to predict the consequences of an action. One variant within utilitarianism is Hedonistic or Classic utilitarianism. Which looks at the view ‘what is good for an individual is what tends to promote happiness or pleasure to the individual’. This holds that the only intrinsic good is pleasure, and that the only intrinsic bad is pain. Everything else is good only insofar as it creates pleasure, and bad only insofar as it creates pain.
Consequential is a type of ethical theory; it’s built upon moral views of acts, rules, etc. purely due to the consideration of their consequences, where the norm of consideration is worked as the norm of non-moral goodness. Happiness is a part of acquiring what could be an unsatisfying truth that we do not have a solid handle of our control or impact in our world; giving into the greatest good, as well as, ignoring what can bring negativity. It is important to make the best out of life as possible that represent positive and negative, and take the rest as life wants to give it. The theory of “good” and bad is really not a matter of concern; we have our own particular views, so what can be bad may actually be good.
Utilitarianism is concerned with consequences that maximize benefits and thus decisions are easier to make than an ethical theory based on moral judgments 3 points Question 13 1. The ___________ egoist says she should seek always and only her individual good; the ___________ egoist says that every individual should seek always and only his or her own good. Answer Universal; Individual Psychological; Ethical Individual; Universal Narcissistic; Hedonistic 3 points Question 14 1. Ethical egoism seeks a social order where conflicting self-interests can be brought together in a peaceable and orderly way. Answer True False 3
We must lie to be a moral person, sending our friend to their impending death. It accords with universalizable maxims to treat people as ends in themselves and exercise their will without concerning ourselves with the consequences of their actions. Perhaps we can find a better way to use the CI in order to obtain a moral answer that we accord with our intuition. Firstly we need to break down Kant’s CI to understand how he uses it to determine moral law. The CI has several formula - the first being The Formula Of Universal Law (FUL): “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Wood 2002, xviii).
Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society. Mill believed indivduality is what it is to be human and anything that takes away your indivuduality is wrong. Mill state in his book On Liberty “Whatever crushes indivduality is despotism.” Despostism is the idea of dictatorship so Mill is saying that anything that stops our indivduality for example religion is controlling us and not allowing us to be free, which is wrong. Althought we are free we must consider others, this means that we can use our freedom however we must make sure we are not spoiling the freedom of others. This is supported by Paul Kurtz who states humans have the right “to satisfy their tastes” but however they shold not “impose their values on others.” For example you may want to murder someone with your free will however if you go ahead and commit the crime you are negatively effecting others in society and this is wrong.
Utilitarianism focuses on the belief that actions can be morally correct if the masses get more of the benefit than any one person. This differs from virtue theory greatly. While virtue theory looks at the history of one individual and those virtues effecting one individuals character, utilitarianism is a focus on the group. It is ones action that gives the group greater good, not an individual. Deontology is the theory that an individual does something because the individual believes it is the right thing to do.
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 principle of utility also advocates that, the correctness or incorrectness of a deed is dependent on the ability for the action to lead to joy or sadness. If an action aims at supporting pleasure and preventing pain, then it rhymes to this principle, and it is morally right. On the contrary, if it does not aim at promoting happiness or preventing pain, then it does not match to the principle of utility, and it is morally incorrect. This principle is argued to be the morally correct principle of deeds at all situations. The principle of utility continually states that morally right actions produce happiness for all the affected people whose concerns are involved in the picture.
Defending Utilitarianism: A Practical Train of Thought Utilitarianism is a philosophy that was outlined by John Stuart Mill in the nineteenth century in his book Utilitarianism. The central concept of which was that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness”. Actions are looked at in terms of a net value which is either pleasure bringing or pain bringing, subsequently good or bad. Utilitarianism serves as a moral code in the sense that when practiced, one looks at the consequences of their actions. Consequences not only include their impact on the individual, but on others as well.
Consequentialism assumes that if human being would weigh the outcome of their taboos and beliefs, then happiness can be achieved and pain reduced. But utilitarianism assumes that people can only value a virtue if it is deemed beneficial in accomplishing human happiness. For example utilitarians believe that truth will make a better society while consequentialists believe that truth will make a better society only if the outcome causes no harm. Basically utilitarianism assumes that the wrongness or rightness of an act depends on the moral good produced as a result of doing that act. This implies that an act is right if it minimizes violation of a certain moral right thus no one should violate moral rights for happiness sake and be justified.