Consequentialism: Jeremy Bentham And John Stuart Mill

Consequentialism The moral theory of consequentialism centers its view about morality as the production of all the kinds of consequences that are naturally good. In this theory according to Kalajtzidis (2013), the reference of consequences of a deed means the overall outcome of an action, the action itself being inclusive. Shafer-Landau (2012) cites that the people who propose and support consequentialism concur with the effect that morality is wholly concerned with issues to do with the creation of as much freedom in the world as can be naturally and humanly possible (Kalajtzidis, 2013).

Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of an action. Deontological approaches focus on the morality of an action on an individual basis. Utilitarian approaches attempt to achieve the greatest good for the greatest amount of

As per the reading suggested by the instructor about the philosophical idea of Consequentialism (Utilitarianism) given by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill and the other concept which is given by Immanuel Kant in the critics of Utilitarianism theory which is called Deontological Ethics. The reading given made understand about all these two concept and their possible application in the policy or law making like the universal law. Utilitarianism:- this is the concept used by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and the John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). The core idea of this theory is the results comes from the action taken by the group of people or the individual. According to theory the outcomes will be judged weather the action was morally right or wrong.

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”. (Mill, utilitarianism, p.697)

It is a results-based concept that gives no weight to the intentions that drive actions but, rather, places emphasis on the consequences of such actions. With specific reference to Bentham’s Utilitarianism and his incorporation of Hedonistic Calculus, this theory is simply derived from human being’s primal desires to seek pleasure and restrict pain, and suggests that morally good actions are those which would accomplish such. Furthermore, the idea of striving to achieve ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’ fuels an objection to this theory when considering the minority,

Dian Davis Professor: Shomaker PHL 115 November 7, 2014 In the past few months I have been introduced to several different theories, but three of those theories stood out in my mind, Deontological theory which rejects consequences as the basis of right and wrong and focus instead on our duty to practice or avoid particular kind of action. On the other hand, Rule Utilitarianism a consequentialist moral theory that defines a morally right rule or practice as one that promote overall utility and Virtue ethics believe that one has to have specific character traits like loyalty, compassion, generosity that have moral value in one self without any underline principles or action guiding them. Some of the similarities of deontological theory and rule

Rational humans should be treated as an end in themselves, thus respecting our own inherent worth and autonomy to make our own decisions. This part of Kant’s ideology may limit what we could do, even in the service of promoting an overall positive, by upholding the principle of not using people with high regard, thus serving as a moral constraint. Deontology remains as the stronger ethical framework as it explicitly lists out how one should act morally through absolute, universal laws, and also by promoting not using others as a mere means, but rather as an end in itself. On the other hand, Utilitarianism, a consequentialist theory, stems from the idea that every morally correct action will produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

Alka Pal Intro to Ethics Instructor- Dr. Mark Journal- 2 (Moral Relativism) February 19, 2018 Ethical Relativism, what is right and wrong in overall opinion among the morality? It differs from religion, cultures, tradition, and societies viewpoint. relativist means belief, idea, proposition, claim, etc. and it’s never good, or bad, true, or false, or right or wrong.

Therefore, this will allow me to put my interests aside and place the needs of others above when working in a professional capacity. This value will guide me to use my professional voice to promote the well-being of my clients. Moreover, this will extend to promoting personal development in

The theory of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with obvious set of principles and rules regardless of results. Deontological ethics focuses on duties, and rights. The term deontological was coined by the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who described it as “knowledge of what is right or proper” Bentham thought that deontology points in the direction of principle of utility. But contemporary philosophers use the term deontological to indicate a contrast with the utilitarian focus on the consequences of action. Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences.

Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are two of the most notable philosophers in normative ethics. This branch of ethics is based on moral standards that determine what is considered morally right and wrong. This paper will focus on Immanuel Kant’s theory of deontology and J.S. Mill’s theory of utilitarianism. While Mill takes a consequentialist approach, focused on the belief that actions are right if they are for the benefit of a majority, Kant is solely concerned with the nature of duty and obligation, regardless of the outcome. This paper will also reveal that Kantian ethics, in my opinion, is a better moral law to follow compared to the utilitarian position.

Moral absolutism leaves no room for logical reasoning. Moral Relativism on the other hand says that moral propositions do not reflect objective and/or

To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,

Consequentialist theory followers. Consequentialist theory followers focus mostly on the consequences of the decision and the action. The most famous consequentialist theory is Utilitarianism. This theory follows the principle of utility which assumes that the decision is ethical if it maximizes benefits to the society and minimizes harms.

Just the word alone is a great summary of what this philosophy deals with. Kant, the German philosopher who developed deontology, taught that the highest good one could achieve is that of good will. However to achieve this highest good one must be motivated only by a duty or