Usefulness refers to the amount of pleasure or happiness caused by an action-hence its theological ethical theory which determines a good act by the ends it brings about. The theory is best known as the greatest happiness principle. Bentham stated ‘an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number’ where the greatest good is the greatest pleasure or happiness and the least pain or sadness, and the greatest number are the majority of people. Good is the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. This theory can be applied in fact both to animals and humans and each individual is equal.
Act utilitarianism is the theory where the principle of utility is applied only to every individual situation. In act utilitarianism there are no moral rules except that the principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number is applied in each situation. Act utilitarianism was devised by Jeremy Bentham which he believed human beings were motivated by pleasure and pain and therefore they may do anything which brings out 'the greatest good for the greatest number.' He believed people must measure their actions by using the hedonic calculus as it weighs up the pain and pleasure generated by the available moral actions to find the best possible outcome. In this type of utilitarianism the pleasure is measured in quantity.
Bentham believed humans were motivated by two things pleasure and pain which was a moral fact with pleasure being the sole good and pain the sole bad. Secondly there was the principle of utility which is the idea that an act is right or wrong based on its usefulness. Bentham said “an act is right if it causes the greatest good for the greatest number”. This is a teleological theory. Finally there is the hedonic calculus.
Therefore, the criminal should get the right punishment as a human being. Bentham Utilitarianism suggests that the morally right action in any circumstances is the one that will tend to maximize total happiness. Utilitarianism focus on greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number people. However, utility support depends on the consequence of the crime. If the consequence bring the greater amount of happiness then more people would support it.
Act Utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that a person's act is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much happiness as any other act that the person could perform at that time. Classical utilitarian’s, including Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Henry Sidgwick, define happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain. To understand how act utilitarianism works, compare the consequences of your watching television all day tomorrow to the consequences of your doing charity work tomorrow. You could produce more overall happiness in the world by doing charity work tomorrow than by watching television all day tomorrow. According to act utilitarianism, then, the right thing for you to do tomorrow is to go out and does charity work; it is wrong for you to stay home and watch television all day tomorrow.
It can’t. The writer explains that good alternatives to punishment by humiliation are educative punishments such as, community service. Why sentence a character degrading punishment when other constructive alternatives are available. Through morally sound punishments, criminals are more likely to learn from their mistakes and develop better
For example, if Kantianism is being used, stealing would be considered a morally wrong action because it shouldn’t become a universal law, regardless of how many people benefit from the action. I choose to compare these two ethical theories because in my perspective they are polar opposites of each other. Utilitarianism is arguing, “ANY action is morally right if it creates the greatest amount of pleasure for the most amounts of people.” This includes murder, stealing, lying, etc. On the other hand, Kantianism is clearly stating some actions are always bad, no matter what could come out of those actions. During the Industrial Revolution is the time period that utilitarianism is known to have come into being (Shanahan and Wang 103).
Thus they argue that one of the causes of crime is merely one’s rational choice. Rational choice theorists like Ron Clarke highlight that individuals have free will and the power of reason which assists them in making choices. Therefore they make calculative decisions and if they feel that the rewards of committing a crime overshadow the risk, then they are likely to commit the crime. This suggests that humans are naturally selfish and so it means that we are provided with a negative vision of looking at crime. However, the idea that humans are naturally selfish seems to be radical.
TROUBLE IS A' BREWING IN BOSTON HARBOR Bostonians are not too happy about the Tea act that was passed on May 10, 1773. This act lets parliament give East India Company monopoly, which in turn will decrease the price of tea for Americans. Why is this a bad thing? Because we do not like to be taxed without representation. We as Americans are still angry about the Townshend Act which taxed glass, paper, playing cards and more.
Based on the law of effect and the subsequent theories of operant conditioning, the absence of punishment (a consequence that causes a behavior to occur with less frequency) only serves to reinforce the criminal’s behavior, as there is no deterring factor to counteract an already beneficial (often financially) behavior. In the absence of punishment, ‘new’ criminals, learning by observation, will realize that the consequences of criminal activity are only positive, resulting in money, social approval and pleasure. Higher detection rates would serve as a vital deterrent to a seemingly rewarding criminal lifestyle. The social learning theory states that crime is more likely to occur when it is frequently reinforced (by money & pleasure)