The lack of sexual education also contributes to young marriage and motherhood rates (Ngo & Leet-Otley, 2011). Hmong parents do not understand sexual education and do not discuss it with their children. In Meschke and Dettmer’s (2013) study on sexual health communication, Hmong daughters inferred that parents believed the talk about sexual health might encourage their daughters to be sexually active. Talking about sex is impolite and embarrassing so Hmong families do not usually have discussions on that topic. However, when they do give out information it is often wrong and exaggerated (Meschke & Dettmer, 2012).
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that focuses on outcomes and consequences. When one considers the theory of utilitarianism, it must be understood that the pleasure is a fundamental moral good and the aim is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. So, when a human is going through the decision making process it is of the utmost importance to look forward at the consequences of the decision and determine if the decision will maximize pleasure and minimize pain. John Stuart Mill, a nineteenth century philosopher focused on the theory of utilitarianism or the Greatest Happiness Principle and claimed that the maximization of happiness for the greatest quantity of people is the ultimate goal. One issue that we face in modern day America that
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
Utilitarianism is one of the best-known theory under the consequentialism, and its idea is the Greatest Happiness Principle(GHP). According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Utilitarian believe that the purpose of morality is to
M. Hare’s argument, it can be seen that there exists some issues with utilitarianism. Or, simply apply utilitarianism to this world, and use utilitarianism code to make every decision is wrong since the code of utilitarianism loss consistency in real world. According to utilitarianism, the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, or happiness. However, happiness is complex. It is generally acknowledged that people who have their physical and emotional needs satisfied and their human rights guaranteed are happy.
This essay will reject the utilitarian claim as to always act as to maximize utility. In order to exhibit why this claim fails, this argument will be based on the most refined description of utility, namely, preference satisfaction utilitarianism, an action which is right, because it produces the most of what is intrinsically valuable, which is more than just the ultimate consequence of pleasure as suggested by the hedonistic utilitarian but instead, is the maximization of individual human preferences being satisfied in relation to the world and therefore, this action creates the maximum balance of happiness over unhappiness for all human beings concerned. This essay will present three objections against and three separate responses in defence
“Kant's criticisms of utilitarianism have become famous enough to warrant some separate discussion. Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action.” “The utilitarian theories are driven by the merely contingent inclination in humans for pleasure and happiness, not by the universal moral law dictated by reason.” “His ethical theory has been as influential as, if not more influential than, his work in epistemology and metaphysics. Most of Kant's work on ethics is presented in two works.
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
In Itself states that people should act in a certain way that you always treat humanity and always consider them as an end but never as mere means. This moral theory opposes to Utilitarianism, which supports the “greatest happiness principle”. According to “greatest happiness principle” people ought to act in such a way that produce the greatest amount of happiness for the
It states that an action which is deemed right is one that has not merely some good consequences, but also the greatest amount of good consequences possible when the negative consequences are also given due considerations. According to the utilitarian principle, the righteousness of an action is solely judged on the basis of its consequences. Classical utilitarianism determines the balance of pleasure and pain for each individual affected by the action in question as well as the amount of utility for the whole
A man by the name of John Stuart Mill seems to be able to give us some answers to these questions. Mill starts our inquiring journey with defining what utilitarianism stands for. In short he states that it is the construction of utility, which claims that the actions that stimulate happiness in is morally fit and vice versa to be unfit. Happiness is something that we want for
Consequentialism is a theory stating morality is dependent on an action’s outcomes; the most noteworthy example of this theory is utilitarianism. Consequentialism is contested as critics find it overdemanding for application on the virtue of its extensiveness in the individual’s life and reliance on unpredictable consequences, and due to the depth of logic override necessary to maximise happiness in some situations. Rebuttals have been made, and in this essay, I will explain the principles of consequentialism and utilitarianism and argue that the refutations are unsuccessful. Consequentialists, as aforementioned, strive to create best overall consequences for the largest amount of people. Moral agents must aim to maximise happiness and minimise pain.
John Stuart Mill, at the very beginning of chapter 2 entitled “what is utilitarianism”. starts off by explaining to the readers what utility is, Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This leads us to another name for utility which is the greatest happiness principle. Mill claims that “actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” “By Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by happiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”.
Utilitarianism argues that human happiness is an ethical goal. How can HRM/CPM contribute to this goal? The concept of Utilitarianism and happiness both encounter certain propagandas when it comes to its theorization due to its relativity to its variables. Mill's utilitarian concept advocates the fundamental stance whereby mass positive externality assures maximized average happiness despite it may urge individuals to "sacrifice" for mass goodness (Mill, 1863).
Title: Philosophy of Development Name: Jitendra Kuldeep Roll No: 13110044 Word Count: 1659
