More handpicked essays just for you.
Jeremy bentham the principle of utility
J. Bentham ideas of utility philosophy
J. Bentham ideas of utility philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
As we know consequentialism is the focus of an action that does more intrinsically good than bad, one kind of consequentialist theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an action that produces consequences that are more good over bad for everyone involved. In order to produce an action that is the best one a utilitarianist would consider both long and short term effects. Two sub categories of utilitarianism include act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. act utilitarianism bases an action on the overall well being produced by an individual.
Rule utilitarianism uses a two-step process when determining if an action is right. When faced with a choice, rule utilitarians will list a set of potential rules, and after finalizing on a general rule, will ask themselves “would this rule, if uniformly followed, maximize overall happiness?”. For a rule utilitarian, they assess their rules on utilitarian grounds and then after assessing their actions, appeal to the rules. To them, an action is right if it conforms to a rule that when adopted, produces more overall happiness than any other alternative rule. The rule utilitarian in the example mentioned above, however, would disagree with me in that stealing the bread was the right thing to do because the general rule is “do not steal”.
It is a teleological ethical system in that its focuses on consequences of actions (Barry, 1985: 65; p. 35). Utilitarianism is categorized in the forms of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism determines the greatest good by studying the utility of a specific act without paying attention to future actions. Rule utilitarianism determines the greatest good by studying the utility of an action as a rule for behavior (Barry, 1985: 65; p. 36). Utilitarianism is the most appropriate ethical system to use for solving the central dilemma of allowing hair follicle analysis as reliable evidence in court
Rule utilitarianism attempts to fix the flaws of act utilitarianism by being stricter on how we should make our decisions. However, rule utilitarianism has the dilemma that sometimes rules can come into conflict with one another. Suppose someone told you a secret and you promised not to tell anyone, but you later find out that secret will harm someone else. Rule utilitarianism holds that people should keep their promises, but also that they should work to not harm anyone. This exposes the main dilemma to rule utilitarianism, and if the rule utilitarian were to say that depending on the situation some rules can be broken, then that just leads right back to act utilitarianism and how it depends on each situation.
Act Utilitarianism requires moral entities to determine the consequences of every individual choice they make, which can seem general. Rule Utilitarianism tries to expand consequentialist theories to see if they are universal or effective in practice. Rule utilitarianism is different because it treats consequences as rules and then determines if these rules would actually make for a more morally responsible world. The way I try to model these to types of utilitarianism is to compare it to automotive law. Act Utilitarianism would be to tell every single person to make driving decisions that would create the most net good on the road meaning safety.
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.
Rule utilitarianism sets rules that utility should be applied to and decisions must conform to said rules to get to the best outcome. Rule utilitarianism is not applied case by case as compared to act. Mill embraces the view of Rule utilitarianism as stated on page 23 “ … proposed by J.S Mill, is to appeal directly to the “first principle” of
It may be less problematic to examine an issue with utilitarianism views if it is a personal issue, like to choose a job from
Rule utilitarianism is one of the two strands within utilitarianism, the other strand is called act utilitarianism (Pojman, p. 130-131). This paper will explain what utilitarianism is, as well as, why the objection that will be
For rule utilitarianism, it tells us to follow a set of rules that maximizes utility such as “keep your promise, otherwise you will get hurt”. The rules permit us to account for obligations to specific people. If I apply rule utilitarianism to the dilemma facing George, he will get a different result from act utilitarianism. First, if George accepts a rule that conditions that parents have the responsibility to take care of their children, George saves his family will not be violated of his duties as a
An act utilitarian would not cheat on a test because if they cheat once then they will continue cheating based on their actions. Rule utilitarianism is less plausible because there are conflicting rules, rules in an ideal set might conflict with another. If you make a promise to not tell where a friend is and someone else asks where that friend is, should you keep promise or tell the truth? You can't satisfy one rule without breaking the other. Another issue is the rule worship problem, upholding a rule even though it doesn’t satisfy its intended consequences.
The other approach, rule-utilitarianism, avoids judging rightness by acts and focuses on rules governing categories of acts. Rule utilitarians believe
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.
Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of the consequence such as; the amount of happiness that is produced by an action, for the individual undertaking the action. For example; treating someone utterly as a means and not as an end in themselves as it benefits you only and you are then happy. Moreover ‘Utilitarianism’ is a theory in normative where mill states ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, the ‘utilitarian’ ethics are also based around how much utility and benefit would action provide you , whereas ‘Kant’s theory contradicts that and states is not the consequence of an action which shows the moral/ rightness and wrongness of an action, and because of this
Utilitarianism is a principle that I often find business makers utilizing. This approach is determined by the consequences of an act; basically if the cost benefits a majority of people. This principle seems to be one of the most popular approaches to ethical decision-making, however, it is not always the best option. An example of this approach is when an employer has to terminate an employee because they have exhausted their PTO and Personal Leave, do not qualify for FMLA, however required to be on payroll for 2 more months to qualify for long-term disability and FMLA. This was a situation that recently happened at my employment place.
