If we were to analyze Utilitarianism closely, we would realize that they do not put any values on human life. In the Utilitarian point of view, every human life is worth the same.
No matter what the status of the entity. What Utilitarianism is all about, is consequences. How an action results in a consequence. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers that were leading advocates for the utilitarianism that we study today. In order to understand the basis of utilitarianism, one must know what happiness is.
John Stuart Mill defines happiness as the intended pleasure and absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure.
Utilitarians Utilitarianism Vs. It has become one the most powerful, influential, and most persuasive approach to normative ethics. The utilitarianism theory also has had a major impacts on approaches to economic, political, and social policy. The utilitarianism theory had originally had been created by Jeremy Bentham. His version of was that aggregate pleasure after deducting suffering of all involved in any action.
It seems irrefutable that there exists an inordinate number of cases where the consequence that is against the best interest of an animal is favorable to humans, yet that dictating action is one that has been continually taken and condoned by the general public.
In this paper, I am going to give a critique of hedonism and utilitarianism. When applying this concept to the consequentialist theory of utilitarianism, it is important to first examine the difference between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. As Mosser explains, act utilitarianism tells us that we must question what single act would generate the greatest good. Whereas, rule utilitarianism evaluates the actions themselves and determines what would produce an outcome that institutes the greatest good.
The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself.
The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness.
In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. As the most common form of consequentialism, based on the pursuit of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, it argues that acts should be judged as right or wrong according to their consequences.
Ideally, utilitarianism would be prosperous if the view was shared among the world. Coming in from a thoroughly nescient perspective, I was unsure of the possibilities, and unsure of the impact I would have on a topic I knew nothing about. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.
There are several varieties of utilitarianism. However, Bentham recognised that it was not normally feasible for an individual to engage in such a calculation as a preliminary to undertaking every act. For this reason he spoke of the general tendencies of actions to enhance happiness suggested by past experience as a sufficient guide in most situations.
To this end he developed rules to guide the lawmaker in the construction of a penal code, including the elements involved in the calculation of the mischief caused by offences and the appropriate punishments. In general he followed Adam Smith in believing the individual to be the best judge of his or her own interests, but the simplicity of this proposition is deceptive see Engelmann This involves the individual in imagining what will occur if she were to act in a certain manner.
For Bentham, the most important elements of the external environment in which a person imagines outcomes are the penalties and rewards laid down by law and those deriving from other educative and moral institutional arrangements and practices, including the sanction exercised by public opinion.
In this sense, law and other agencies may be used to construct interests by providing individuals with the motives to pursue courses of action beneficial to the community. It is the individual who then must correctly perceive where her interests lie; she must imagine the expected outcomes the legislator has determined. Second, Bentham recognised that explaining action in terms of interest is potentially circular. If we mean, acting to pursue our interest in the widest sense, then the statement is tautological b, 93n.
Bentham recognised the possibility of altruistic actions, and frequently alluded to his own philanthropy when recommending schemes to further the public good. However, if not all action is motivated by self-interest in the narrow or strict meaning of the term, then how far can the self-preference principle be considered a reliable guide for the legislator in constructing motives? While it is not true that everyone always acts in his or her self-interest, it is best that the legislator design institutions and law as if this were in fact true.
Self-interested acts are the norm; altruism is the exception. Third, although individuals may in general be the best judges of their own interests, they may not always judge wisely. But if people incorrectly perceive their interests, then the legislator may be misled in constructing the appropriate motivation. This means that assessing the value of the constituent elements of interest pains and pleasures is a tricky business for the legislator; he must accurately observe the ways people behave, deduce the motives behind their actions, and encompass this knowledge in the sanctions of law.
The aim is to tell individuals what they should not do, but also to provide them with motives pains and pleasures in prospect sufficient to divert their desires into channels best designed to serve the public interest.
In this way government could educate its citizens to make more effective choices, or at least guide them into more appropriate paths to achieve their real interests —43, I, Bentham recognised that neither the individual nor the legislator could strictly follow the process he described.
As is well known, while adhering to the basic Benthamic analysis of motives, in Utilitarianism J. This tended to undermine the aggregative dimension of the theory laid down by Bentham. Benthem considers how strong the pain or pleasure is, whether it is short lived or life long and how likely it is that there will be pain or pleasure. He considers how immediate the pain or pleasure is and how likely it is to lead to more of the same, the extent to which there might be a combination of pains and pleasures, and lastly the number of people affected.
The balance of pleasures and pains is compared with those of other options and the best result determined. The action that leads to this best consequence is the morally correct one to pursue. Related Essays. Utilitarianism can be contrasted with other ethical theories such as deontology; deontologists consider the morality of the actions while disregarding the consequences produced by their actions.
Any action that produces less happiness than an available alternative is not morally just. In fact, any action that produces pain, as opposed to pleasure, is considered unjust. Whether an action is right or wrong is independent of the intentions of the person committing the action.
He was a utilitarianist, which is the idea that the right judgment is the judgment that brings the most happiness.Early life[ edit ] Portrait of Bentham bentham the studio of Thomas Fryeutilitarianism Bentham was born on jeremy 15 February in HoundsditchLondonto a wealthy family that supported the Tory party. He was reportedly a essay prodigy: he was found as a toddler sitting at his father's desk reading a multi-volume history of Popular phd essay ghostwriting websites for mba, and he paper to study Latin writing the weight of three. He basildon Westminster School and, inat age bond, was sent by his father to The Queen's College, Oxfordwhere he completed his bachelor's degree in and his master's writer in
The precise extent of Bentham's influence in British politics has been a matter of some debate. Furthermore amongst individuals, there was different way of thinking into how to reduce and eliminate occurred. This theory maintains that an action is right if it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number, therefore it is wrong if it does not do this. Bentham believed we could quantify or measure pleasure. Moreover, Bentham contended against the opponents of the principle of utility that every moral argument must implicitly draw from the idea of maximizing happiness Classical Utilitarianism is an ethical theory which promotes the moral decision as one which produces the most utility.
Cannibalism, Wikipedia Plane crashes; shipwrecks and religious ceremonies are assimilated with these acts against humanity. Sprigge, 10 vols. Finally, Bentham held that there are advantages to a moral philosophy based on a principle of utility. You are fearful because you know that you are being watched, but you do not know who is watching you or when you are being watched. John Stuart Mill was also known for several things that he has done This resulted in the Thames Police Bill of , which was passed in
The United Nations is such an organization. What do we withhold. The Industrial Revolution with the massive economic and social shifts that it brought in its wake , the rise of the middle class, and revolutions in France and America all were reflected in Bentham's reflections on existing institutions. He was raised in a period of social, economic, and political prosperity that impacted his take on society. Combining the subjects of torture and utilitarianism can cause a large moral dilemma. In the following paragraphs we will explore the history of Utilitarianism and those who formed it, how it is meant to guide life, and how it is relevant to life in the Twenty-first Century
He viewed the Oxbridge colleges as seats of privilege, prejudice and idleness, and his Oxford experience left him with a deep distrust of oaths and sparked a general antipathy toward the Anglican establishment , 35— Fortunately, an inheritance received in provided him with financial stability.
In , his Book of Fallacies appeared, in which he employed a humorous vein of barbs to lay bare the fallacious reasoning frequently used to bolster sinister interests and stymie proposals for reform