More handpicked essays just for you.
Act utilitarianism pros and cons
Act utilitarianism pros and cons
Consequentialist perspective of utilitarianism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Franklin’s occupations included: corporate lawyer, politician, writer, and soldier. He served as a corporate lawyer from the time he graduated from college in 1903 to 1907. He started his career as a politician when he became a New York Senator in the 1910s. Franklin was also a writer for a very short period of his life. He wasn’t a literal soldier, but a soldier in the fact that he battled his way through his twelve years of presidency.
nature are hedonistic, this means that people given the opportunity would avoid painful situations at all costs, while vigorously reaching out for pleasurable moments. An example of reasoning in act Utilitarianism can be found in the biomedical ethics book (Mapes&Gaize pg. 10). A severely ill infant who has zero chances of survival has contracted a deadly virus, the physician and parents now must make the decision to treat the virus with antibiotics or allow the infant to simply die. In this case it is clear that those involved would be best served by allowing the child to simply die, since the infant has nothing to gain and everything to lose from a painful prolonged life. The anguish and distress of the parents cannot be eliminated regardless
113-122. 717–746, https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract2021922140. “University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering What Is Ethics.” SSoE Home, www.engineering.pitt.edu/subsites/projects/engineering-ethics/what-is-ethics/. Accessed 29 Apr. 2024. The. “Utilitarianism.”
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that endorses the pursuit of well-being as the best course of action for a good life. One prevalent subject surrounding utilitarianism, and ethics in general, is the treatment of animals in relation to the treatment of humans. While there are many different opinions on correct animal treatment, utilitarianism is one that argues that some humans are morally equal to some animals. This essay further explains the utilitarian view of moral equivalency between humans and animals and why it is an accurate claim. Utilitarianism offers the claim that humans and animals can be considered equals and therefore treated equally in similar situations.
To warrant my statement, the theory of moral responsibilities and utilitarian approach will be taken into consideration. To impartially resolve a moral dilemma, one ought to choose between the options that has greater weight. In order to determine the weights of moral responsibilities, a theory is greatly needed. One theory can be taken from Michael J. Sandel’s book entitled
The government is watching you; there is nothing you can do that they will not notice. This is the reality in 1984 by George Orwell. Winston lives in Oceania in 1984 and works for the government; however, he begins to realize that everything the government has taught him is against all moral laws. Winston joins a secret group of rebels called The Brotherhood, the adversary of the Party, where he meets his love, Julia. Winston and Julia’s love is a crime, and so is belonging to The Brotherhood.
Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that
Imagine turning on the morning Fox News only to see there was another terrorist attack somewhere in the world. Imagine working for the government as a person who reads individual’s emails, texts, or listens in on their phone calls, only to realize the job was to spy on innocent citizens. What if people were told they were being watched “to prevent another terrorist attack,” only to understand the government did not see the past few coming, such as the “Boston Marathon Bombing or the New York Times Square Bombing”(For the Record)? These events lead up to the government making individuals give up their freedom because they are being spied on, similar to the ones described in George Orwell’s book, 1984. Characters such as Winston and Julia lived
“Big Brother is watching you” (Orwell). Many people know of this famous quote from George Orwell’s 1984. In the book, Big Brother is the leader that rules the nation of Oceania. They keep tabs on their citizens through telescreens, which are basically two way televisions (Alasdair). Although telescreens do not exist in todays world, something even more personal does, and almost everyone has one; a cell phone, and the predictions of Big Brother have come true through the United States National Security Agency’s data-collection program known as PRISM.
“To wing your course along the middle air; if low the surges wet your flagging plumes; if high, the sun the melting wax consumes”. This is the advice that Daedalus, the inventor from a renowned Greek myth, gave to his son Icarus when he was about to escape from Crete by means of wings that his father made. In order to control his wings, Icarus had to keep a constant distance between the sun and his wings. However, he eventually disregarded his father’s warning and filled with the exhilaration of flying. With the greed to fly as high as he could, he flew too high and too close to the sun.
In a world where 2+2=5 and the truth is false, The Party dictates every thought and belief of a people raised to never question Big Brother (Orwell). If you have no opinion, no personal notion, you will believe anything you are told. There is no reason to object. Alex Hamilton said, “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” Science says that the solid world’s laws do not change based on human sentiment, but the age-old question still arises, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Like machines, they are fully controlled. That is why they cannot act in a different way they are not allowed to. Any disturbance of identity may lead to the breach of the ‘peace’ and stability, it may endanger public security. Such is the truth of the ‘Brave New World’. It represents a disturbing, loveless and even ominous place.
By using utilitarian moral principles we can argue the case from a different perspective. Utilitarianism holds that an action that produces the greatest balance of benefits over harms for everyone affected. As long as a course of action produces maximum benefits for everyone. Utilitarianism does not care whether the benefits are produced by lies, manipulation, or coercion when holds a greater outcome for many. This theory creates controversy in business ethics in case of this corporation’s obligations to society.
When discussing both act and rule utilitarianism, it is important to understand that both of them agree in terms of the overall consequence of an action, because they emphasize on creating the most beneficial pleasure and happiness in the outcome of an act. Despite this fact, they both have different principles and rules that make them different from each other. Act utilitarianism concentrates on the acts of individuals. Meaning that if a person commits an action, he/she must at least have a positive utility. The founders of utilitarianism define positive utility as happiness and pleasure and consider it to be a driving force of all positive and morally right acts.
Now, let’s analyses the same scenario using a utilitarian perspective. What would Bentham say about this action? For Bentham, the moral worth of an action solely depends on its contribution to the overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure and minimizing pain as summed among the people. According to Bentham, “An action then may be said to be conformable to the principle of utility, or, for shortness sake, to utility, (meaning with respect to the community at large) when the tendency it has to augment the happiness of the community is greater than any it has to diminish it,”(14). In his utilitarian approach to abortion, Bentham would use the hedonic calculus which he designed to weigh up the pain and pleasure generated by the available
