Consequentialism is defined as the actions that should be more evaluated on the basis of the consequences. However, it’s the results from that particular consequence that actually strikes a nerve. In the mindset of utilitarian’s consequences focus on the happiness and pleasure of that particular end result. The understanding that the consequences are so good that it outweighs the negativity; maximizing happiness for all. However, for people such as Bernard Williams we shouldn’t regard consequences as happiness or pleasure for the multitude of people, but rather the happiness within ourselves. Williams reason in criticizing utilitarianism is because of their insensibility to recognize self-morality, self-dignity, personal commitment, and understanding the importance of integrity.
One of the main leading factors in Williams disagreement towards the idea of
…show more content…
The second case study involves George, the poor chemist who was looking for a job. In George case, he’s stuck in a position on whether it would be right to take on a job that goes against his personal beliefs, chemical and biological warfare. For George the job causes much restraint because he opposes the entire role and responsibilities that the job entails. However, if George refuse to take the job he’s allowing for another candidate with immense passion for chemical warfare to take the job. A genuine utilitarian would say that George should “take the job” and to disregard his feelings. What seems to strike the attention of Williams and myself is the way utilitarians scrutinize the emotions and feelings of the agent. If a utilitarian would answer whether or not to kill the Indian, they would simply reply with “Kill the Indian.” Jim’s “squeamishness” antics in killing one of the Indians and George’s feelings towards the chemical warfare seems irrational to the mindset of a
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that determines right from wrong when looking at the outcomes. It believes that the most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Consequentialism is found in utilitarianism; consequentialism is largely thought about during war. When you fight for your life in war, you end up taking another person's life. While this may be good for your country, it is hurting a different country.
Caleb Stephens April 15, 2017 Introduction to Philosophy The goal of this paper is to demonstrate that Philippa Foot’s objection, raised to her own argument against utilitarianism, is correct. Her initial thesis is that benevolence, while the foundation of utilitarianism, is an internal end of morality, rather than the ultimate end of morality. The possible objection to this that there must be some overarching reason behind morality, which must imply a form of consequentialism. The response she offers is that there should be some other form of morality, which is a weak argument, as it does not provide an alternate conception of morality itself.
Consequentialists say that morality is all about producing the right kinds of overall consequences. They believe that whether the action is right or wrong depends solely on its consequences. In order to follow this, we first figure out what is valuable or good and then we MAXIMIZE it. If the consequence of the action produces the maximum amount of good for the greatest number of people, then the action is right. Consequentialism is controversial.
When studying philosophy, a student becomes very aware of the contradiction and different opinions of highly remarked philosophers. Many students become frustrated with the opposition and question the importance of the study all together. Others choose to indulge in these differences to further their understanding beyond what he/ she thought capable of beforehand. The obvious contradictions between Kant’s deontology, and Bentham’s and Mill’s utilitarianism is a perfect example of such occasion in philosophy.
Consequentialist believe that morality is about producing the right overall consequences, and that the action brings about either happiness, freedom or survival of species. Utilitarianism is an example of consequentialism that maximizes utility (happiness). The difference between utilitarianism and consequentialism is that a utilitarian overlooks justice, as long as an utilitarian can maximize pleasure they would do whatever it takes. Consequentialist enjoy maximizing pleasure like a utilitarian, but they also take into account autonomy and justice. A consequentialist believes that determining good by measuring the outcome, if the good for all in the act is greater than the bad for all in the act, it is deemed morally good.
In healthcare, Utilitarian’s believe in everyone having equal healthcare, or moral proper care regardless of their issues. A few examples of this are smokers who have bad lungs because they smoke receive the same care as non-smokers with bad lungs, or who also receive the same care as a person with a genetic heart disease, or a killer receiving the same care as a non-killer. Consequentialism and non-consequentialism involve making judgements about a person’s moral actions and the reasons behind
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.
The Evaluation of What Is Wrong with Slavery In the paper what is wrong with slavery, R.M. Hare argues that, according to utilitarianism, slavery is evil and should be abolished in every society. He discusses the definition of slavery, and after that shows imaginary cases to illustrate his ideas. However, does his argument make a cogent case? Is there any exceptions to his argument?
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
To have Integrity a person must adhere to certain morals and standards that they can build themselves off of. Say a vegetarian who finds themselves in a restaurant with no vegetarian options, they would have the integrity to refuse to eat at this establishment and not give up there morals. Integrity however plays a large role in Bernard Williams’ article Against Utilitarianism, he elaborates on the idea that Utilitarianism is in direct violation with one’s integrity. It is violated by something called “negative responsibility” which is the notion that the outcome of an event is on the hands of anyone who could have participated. To display this fault in Utilitarianism Williams brings two examples to the table, one involving George and another
Williams transitions from this example into the discussion of something he calls “the precedent effect”. The fear of this effect is that certain horrendous utilitarian acts might encourage people to behave immorally because of the precedent that may be set by these actions. Even though Williams admits that the precedent effect would only occur if people where confused as to why utilitarian’s had to commit a horrendous act, Williams believes that this confusion is a very real possibility if utilitarianism is ever used in
In this case, Dr. Myrick uses utilitarian idealism to justify killing homeless people for his research. Dr. Myrick believed using human subjects for his research project would help him find a cure for paralyzed people. If he were successful, this would bring happiness to millions of people. With the theory of utilitarianism Dr. Myrick should do whatever he needed to do to produce the most happiness for people everywhere. Even though Dr. Myrick’s actions would help many people, he harmed people in the process.
Commonly, ethical systems are categorized into two major systems. The deontological approaches or normative ethical position which judges an action based on the adherence of the action to certain rules and the teleological approaches which judges primarily based on the consequences of an action (Hare, 1964). The Utilitarianism is assigned to the teleological approaches, as it does not evaluate an action by itself but by it’s
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
The hedonic calculus has seven different criteria that must be considered to evaluate the balance between good and evil. This appears practical and easy to use in any situation; however, it has its issues. For example, Bentham suggested that all pleasure and pain should be measured equally. This causes a major problem when put into the context of business ethics, as it suggests that the pain experienced by a child forced to work in a factory is equal to a shareholder in a business gaining a little more profit – surely, this is unethical. J.S. Mill noticed this issue, introducing rule utilitarianism, in which he recognised the differences in different types of pleasures.