ipl-logo

Explain What Is Wrong With The Utilitarian Concept Of Beneficence

973 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Utilitarian theory of rights

What is wrong with the utilitarian conception of beneficence? Utilitarians base morality on the maximisation of utility, hence the concept of beneficence, trying to produce the most pleasures and suffer the least pains. Bentham, the founder of the doctrine of utilitarianism, recognised the fact that every moral argument will eventually fall back on the idea of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. In this essay, I will mainly focus on the aspect of individual rights and the inaccessibility of the concept. To start off, there is something fundamentally wrong about the mechanical process of calculating pleasures and pains if we consider the case of R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC where a moral enormity seems to be sanctioned by utilitarians. There, a cabin boy was killed for food in order for …show more content…

Putting aside the legal context of the case, was killing the cabin boy right? Utilitarians say yes because utility was maximised, but isn’t there something inherently wrong about murdering an innocent child? Utilitarians only account for the result, never the means, they therefore allow violation of individuals so long as the aggregate pleasure generated is greater. The question here is that, should it ever be granted right to exploit a human’s vulnerability as such? Shouldn’t there be certain rights that every human being is entitled to (i.e. dignity, respect, the right to live etc.) simply because we are all rational individuals capable of reasoning? Morality should not therefore be something we can calculate by merely weighing costs and benefits. An objection towards utilitarianism is therefore the failure to consider the separateness of persons thus individual rights. To utilitarians, the only importance of a person is the way that he can contribute towards achieving utility in a community. This means that utilitarianism fails to

Show More
Related
1325 Words | 6 Pages

Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.

Read More
1237 Words | 5 Pages

Under the moral theory of act utilitarianism, I will argue that the elements that define it as a moral theory, do not always hold up as a strong theory in its totality when we critically analyse it. I will also point out a few hypothetical situations and possible consequences when implementation of act utilitarianism is followed through. The consequences will be proven to have the potential to undo the utility of happiness for our loved family members, in order to care for strangers we do not have a connection with, which in my opinion is highly immoral. According to lecture notes ( Weijers & Munn 2016)

Read More
618 Words | 3 Pages

The scramble of Africa is typically considered as one of the most striking outbursts of imperialism. This sets the stage for Europe’s power as an imperial state. After the abolishment of slave trade, trade through numerous materials and resources brought economic prosperity to the region. The European quest for empire was due to the want of domination and exploitation of Africa’s natural resources. This conquest of Africa is used for the betterment of Europe’s economic and political benefit.

Read More
1565 Words | 7 Pages

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.

Read More
241 Words | 1 Pages

Consequentialism is based more around the consequence and final result of the actions. In our text book, Ethical Reasoning, it states that in consequentialism, “consequences count, not motives or intentions” (Pence, 2011). Non-consequentialism is based around the intention of one’s doing, regardless of the consequences. A particular action may be good for a business but not good for society or ones health. An example of this would be pharmaceutical companies raising the cost for medicine, this cause many patients to suffer or not be able to afford the medication they need.

Read More
723 Words | 3 Pages

The Tragedy of Macbeth is a play written by Shakespeare, an old English playwright, in 1606. It was published during the reign of King James I of Scotland and tells the story of a king and his tyrannical rise to power in Scotland. In 1513, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince, which is a written set of criteria that is supposed to be met by any good ruler. Focusing on chapters seventeen and eighteen of The Prince, one can come to conclude that King Macbeth does not meet such criteria. With that, Macbeth is not a proper Machiavellian Prince because he cannot mask his deeds with a pretense and is unable to keep his subjects united.

Read More
366 Words | 2 Pages

The problem with Utilitarianism is that it very easily justifies the oppression and abuse of minorities as long as the majority of people is better off because of it. Why would it be wrong to keep 10% of the population as slaves if 90% of the population never have to do hard or unpleasant work as a result? Why would it be wrong to simply kill people who aren't well liked by the majority if they all feel better as a result? The issue with a philosophy that bases whether something is good or evil purely on whether the majority or the minority are benefiting is simply a nightmare scenario for anyone who's part of a minority that is said to cause unhappiness for the majority. Like, the Empire in Star Wars is Utilitarian.

Read More
92 Words | 1 Pages

Exactly, you would want your child to be saved as well. That 's one of the major flaws I see in utilitarianism. The rule of utilitarianism is that the decision that brings the most happiness should be made. I 'm not saying the disabled child wouldn 't bring any happiness, I 'm saying in this case the neighbor 's four kids would bring more happiness to society rather than the disabled one. The act of utilitarianism is a cruel system, but if one wants to incorporate into society then they should incorporate it completely rather than

Read More
1218 Words | 5 Pages

The main principle of utilitarianism is happiness. People who follow this theory strive to fulfill the “ultimate good”. The “ultimate good” is defined as ultimate pleasure with out any pain. It is said that the pleasure can be of any quantity and any quality, but pleasures that are weighted more important are put at a higher level than others that are below it. This ethical theory also states that if society would fully embrace utilitarianism then people would naturally realize their moral standing in the

Read More
1225 Words | 5 Pages

In this study, 17 patients each had a 120-degree heat simulator placed on their legs. Patients all gave varying numerical (0-10) values to their pain, even though the actual source of pain was identical (Science Daily, 2013). This study shows that everyone experiences pain differently, and, therefore, experiences happiness and pleasure differently. Hedonistic utilitarianism also requires, in certain circumstances, that we choose to make decisions that make us happier in the long run. This can be a very complicated task, and makes deciding which actions to take in everyday life, much harder.

Read More
524 Words | 3 Pages

Today I learned a lot from the presentations in class from some philosophers theories and my classmate's opinions on these theories. Utilitarianism was one of my favorites and this theory seemed to care for people the most and how they are affected by a situation. I favored this idea because it is very close to my very own personality because before I take a serious action I put a lot of thought into consideration before proposing a decision. I am very considerate of others feeling and I think about how will my actions make this person feel or will it affect others so I guess that is why I took the concept of utilitarianism very personal and found this very interesting.

Read More
1711 Words | 7 Pages

Utilitarianisms would answer the question in the affirmative and change the track so only one person has to suffer. However, we have to question if the Utilitarianism is applicable to such ethical questions (Smart & Williams, 1973). This essay will outline several strength and weaknesses of the Utilitarianism devised by Jeremy Bentham. Firstly, the Utilitarianism will be outlined, secondly some strength and weaknesses are explained by employing examples, and thirdly several solution approaches for dilemmas Bentham’s Utilitarianism is facing will be sketched.

Read More
494 Words | 2 Pages

Utilitarianism would endorse this action as morally justifiable because the majority had survived because of this. Another example that is more relevant in today’s society is the requirement to vaccinate children against diseases even if it is considered against their individual religions. Some argue that this is a violation of an individual’s rights but utilitarianism would see this as a morally justifiable action because even though it is restricting an individual’s right to religion, it serves to help prevent diseases that could potentially be dangerous or fatal to many individuals thus providing the most benefit to the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism has been applied to global problems like poverty as well.

Read More
503 Words | 3 Pages

Utilitarianism is a very controversial theory. Many people disagree with this idea because it disrupts our personal relationships, it is too demanding, it promotes that the consequences are the only thing that matters, and shows that pleasures are the only things that are important. Classical Utilitarianism is based on three points; that morality of actions are only bases on consequences, the consequences only matter if it creates more or less happiness, and everyone gets equal considerations when it comes to happiness. The classical Utilitarianism was made and defended by three philosophers from 19th century England; John Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Henry Sidgwick. These people help this theory to be highly influential in the modern era.

Read More
1685 Words | 7 Pages

The hedonic calculus has seven different criteria that must be considered to evaluate the balance between good and evil. This appears practical and easy to use in any situation; however, it has its issues. For example, Bentham suggested that all pleasure and pain should be measured equally. This causes a major problem when put into the context of business ethics, as it suggests that the pain experienced by a child forced to work in a factory is equal to a shareholder in a business gaining a little more profit – surely, this is unethical. J.S. Mill noticed this issue, introducing rule utilitarianism, in which he recognised the differences in different types of pleasures.

Read More

More about Explain What Is Wrong With The Utilitarian Concept Of Beneficence

Related Topics

Open Document