Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Mill's utilitarianism argument
Key ethical theories
Essay on the trolley problem
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Mill's utilitarianism argument
Key ethical theories
Essay on the trolley problem
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Mill's utilitarianism argument
"The Trolley Problem compels individuals to confront the fundamental moral dilemma of whether it is justifiable to sacrifice one life to save many others" (Shafer-Landau). The central ethical question posed by the Trolley Problem revolves around the morality of actively choosing to divert the trolley, thereby sacrificing one life to save five. Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, asserts that the moral rightness of an action is determined by its consequences, specifically its ability to maximize overall happiness or utility. From a utilitarian perspective, the solution to the Trolley Problem appears straightforward: divert the trolley onto the track with only one individual, thereby minimizing overall harm and maximizing utility. By sacrificing the life of one individual to save the lives of five others, the action aligns with the foundational tenets of utilitarianism by producing the greatest good for the greatest
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
Whether or not to give money to a homeless man depends on one’s values. Especially if you have the money and would hardly notice it’s absence. This paper will argue whether to give money to a homeless person based on the theories of utilitarianism, Kantian ethics and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism promotes maximizing the most happiness or pleasure. Therefore, this view would give the homeless person the money.
In retrospect, I can resonate more with Mill’s utilitarianism. I would rather kill one person than five. I believe if I chose to be selfish and save a loved one, I would be looked down upon. To carry the weight of knowing that you could have saved lives, would most likely be a haunting experience. I would not want the families of the victims to endure the pain of losing a loved one.
The study conducted was inspired by a family of ethical dilemmas familiar to contemporary moral philosophers. Two dilemmas were under study. In the first dilemma, a runaway trolley is headed for five people. If nothing is done these five people will be killed. In this dilemma there is only one way to save these five people from death.
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
One of the theories I have noticed during the discussion was Consequential ethics theory. According to Pozgar (2013) "Consequential ethical theory revolves around the premise that the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on the consequences or effects of an action" (p. 7). During the discussion, two goals were clearly in conflict- the goal to repopulate the earth and the goal to determine who should get the chance to stay at the station to return to the earth. Pozgar (2013) also states " The goal of consequentiality is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number" (p. 7). In healthcare ethics committee, this can have its own negative consequences as it undermines individual's right to autonomy.
An interesting concept to look at in comparison is the “Trolley Dilemma” which prompts whether the sacrifice of one life is worth it to save the many. The concept starts with a trolley on a track that splits into two different paths. Standing on the path to the right are 5 people who will be killed if the Trolley stays on its original path. To the left is a person standing alone. The driver of the Trolley must decide to either stay on the same path or alter course and decide whether to kill the five people or just one.
John’s actions of first viewing, then photographing her undressing victimize Jane, even if she never becomes aware of the violation of her privacy. This behavior exemplifies the differences between deontological and teleological ethical systems. While deontological ethics would immediately condemn John’s actions based on “the inherent nature of the act being judged” (Pollock, pp. 35, 2017), a teleological or consequential approach focuses on if the “ends justifies the means” (Pollock, pp. 38, 2017). If a restriction is placed on moral interpretations, forcing one to adhere to a consequential belief system, a weighing of ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ must be calculated.
Throughout history many great philosophers have attempted to unravel the origins of virtues by developing moral theories of their own. This document is designed to provide the reader with an overview of some of the more popular theories concerning morals. Three of the most popular moral theories are… Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism. Though Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism differ in many ways, they also share similar fundamentals. Utilitarianism is a highly acclaimed theory that is morally based on consequentialism.
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.
Brave new world - Essay I look at this from a utilitarian perspective were the moral thing is to do the most good for the most amount of people. The individual, while important in any sense, is only relevant in terms of the community as a whole. It is very similar to the question of individual versus collective happiness. The happiness of the most amount of people is better than letting the individual decide for oneself.
In the film Extreme Measures someone can find ideas of Secular Ethics throughout the film involving Utilitarianism and its basic tenets along with Kantian analysis. The basic tenets of Utilitarianism include the principle of utility, Hedonism, and the viewpoint of a disinterested and benevolent spectator. While the tenets of Kantian Ethics, which include good will, the formula of universal law, the formula of the end itself, and the categorical imperative. These basic ideas setup arguments for and against the Utilitarian ideas set up by doctor Myrick. In the film doctor Myrick makes the claim that it is worth the deaths of unwilling subjects in order to help/save the lives of millions.
Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people?
Title: Philosophy of Development Name: Jitendra Kuldeep Roll No: 13110044 Word Count: 1659