In this essay, I will first describe the concept of spontaneity in both Mencian and Daoist views, and then I will argue that it is better to live spontaneously, in terms of psychological wellbeing and quality of decision in life. From Mencian view, human nature (xing) is inherently good. Mencius 6A/2 states that humans’ good nature is like water’s nature to flow down, even if we do bad things,
As we know consequentialism is the focus of an action that does more intrinsically good than bad, one kind of consequentialist theory is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an action that produces consequences that are more good over bad for everyone involved. In order to produce an action that is the best one a utilitarianist would consider both long and short term effects. Two sub categories of utilitarianism include act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. act utilitarianism bases an action on the overall well being produced by an individual.
This provides an adequate definition of what a benevolent person is. She then continues “This, then, seems to be the way in which seeing states of affairs in which people are happy as good states of affairs really is an essential part of morality” (48), arguing that it must be part of morality to try to have people happy. She then draws an important distinction between having benevolence as an essential part of morality, and having it as the end of morality. “But it is very important that we have found this end within morality, and forming part of it, not standing outside it as the ‘good state of affairs’ by which moral action in general is to be judged.” (48). She goes on to explain that other virtues can supersede benevolence, which provides proof that benevolence is not the ultimate end.
In the reading, "Utilitarianism," the author argues that happiness is the main criteria for morality since people base their actions off of the overall happiness it could promote (pp. 195 and 198) and that while actions differ in the quantity and quality of pleasure, pleasurable actions that require intellect are of the higher pleasures (pp. 196-197). One of the author’s main reasons to support his view is that morality is determined by what increases or decreases the overall amount of utility (pp. 197).
4-5: The philosopher would define normal in a utilitarian standpoint, which emphasizes on the greater good for the most people. The distinction between normal and abnormal would fall under the choices one makes in life, and whether those choices have good or bad consequences. The strength that lies within this viewpoint would be the hope that all people should work to benefit the whole, and if they act as such, then they are normal. The limitations of this definition include there being no real address to
According to theory the outcomes will be judged weather the action was morally right or wrong. As per this theory the outcome of any action should minimize the pain and maximize the pleasure. The utilitarianism have two groups one is the Act utilitarian’s focun on the effects of individual actions (Such as Nathuram Godse’s assassination of Mahatma Gandhi) and another is rule utilitarian’s those focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing) Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders
Decisions about right and wrong fill each and every day. Turmoil exists due to deciding if Deontology, where one acts based on the right motives, or if Utilitarianism, where one should act in a way that would produce the best results and consequences, should govern decisions and their morality. However, I believe Deontology, which is reason and duty based, serves as the superior way to dictate morality. In this paper, I will explain both the principles of Deontology and Utilitarianism, discuss the superior aspects of Deontology as compared to Utilitarianism, as well as grapple with objections to Deontology. While both ethical frameworks contain parts of ideologies that could be seen as valid, Kant’s theory on Deontology holistically remains
Human beings are the only things that have true value. Their moral worth allows them to work out whether an action is the right thing to do or if it is the wrong thing to do. This essay will aim to show how the Utilitarian’s and Kantian’s view punishment for a crime and explains how the Kantian view provides a better moral theory. The Utilitarian’s view of morality is that it (morality) is dependent on the consequences of actions and the level of happiness that is brought about by a specific action. Happiness can be determined by the amount of pleasure or pain.
Rethinking Principle of Utility What is the guideline of your behavior and what does pleasure means to you? In Bentham’s book An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he gives a detailed explanation of principle of utility, a series of principles of behaviors. He thinks it is pleasure and pain that determine what human beings should do, and the motivation of humans’ behaviors can be attributed to the pursuit of happiness or the evasion of pain. Besides, he states that a good action should increase the happiness or diminish the pain, otherwise the action will be harmful to the whole community. However, Bentham’s principle of utility is under-developed because of his oversimplification of the relationships of individual and
The ultimate goal of this theory is to bring happiness to those involved and to also prevent evil and unhappiness within the group (Bentham, 39). The same goes for an individual. Whatever option would bring that person the greatest pleasure would be the right choice and all other options would be wrong because they would be bringing them pain. Bentham states that when you consider an individual or a group then you can determine the value of the pleasure or pain felt in a situation through evaluating its intensity, duration, certainty/ uncertainty, propinquity/ remoteness, fecundity, and purity (41). This means that you can determine the amount of pleasure or pain a person will feel depending on how greatly it scores on these
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that is credited to being created by Jeremey Bentham. Bentham believed that all humans make choices based on two feelings, pain and pleasure. Because of this, Bentham believed that motives are not good or bad in nature but instead on what feeling a human might feel more. Utilitarianism believes that the rightness or wrongness of an action is completely based on just the consequences of the action. Utilitarianism can be defined at its core as the belief that choices should be made for the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people.
John Stuart Mill is a utilitarian. He believes that all sentient creators are psychologically hedonistic; that we naturally seek out pleasures and avoid pains (Pg. 88). As a utilitarian, he focuses on ethical hedonism, the idea that we ought to maximize our happiness. To Mill, the right actions to take are those that promote happiness, the wrong actions to take are those that promote pain (Pg.
In Mill’s context, the rights of those hurt by language should be upheld because they constitute a large amount of the population in terms of suffering. Kant believes that we should protect an individual’s rights because we are all rational beings who are valued intrinsically (Sandel, p. 104). Kant is concerned with the idea of freedom and how we value things. He believes that because we have the capacity of free will, then we shouldn’t be used in an object manner. This alludes to the notion that as beings designated personhood, we have dignity and self-worth that is intrinsic (Sandel, p. 98).