Utilitarianism Justification of Exam Cheating Utilitarianism is one of the best ethical approaches that can be used to justifying a right action from a wrong action by focusing on the outcome of the path taken. The most important thing is that the action taken to achieve a certain outcome has to be of the greater benefit of the society at large. Whether the outcome is bad, it can be used to morally justify some deeds regardless of how inhumane they can be. On the other side, utilitarianism also does not justify everything because it is difficult at time to predict whether the actions taken will be good or bad at the end. Additionally, values cannot be accounted for.
(Thiroux & Krasemann, 2009)The reason for mentioning both acting and following rules is that utilitarianism generally is found in two main forms: Act Utilitarian and Rule utilitarian. For Act Utilitarian I think it’s okay if it causes more happiness or prevents pain in some way, and for Rule Utilitarian, I think we should make rules that from our experience show will increase happiness, and follow those
These critics want to make the test of C1 capable of generating results by suggesting that we ought to include background theory summarized in some common-sense rules. Such rules are called, variously, postulates of rationality by Silber, constraining principles of empirical, practical reason by Rawls, and principles of rational intending by O’Neill. Silber, Rawls, and O’Neill share a strategy of demonstrating that a moral test can be made by C1. In order to judge right or wrong, they essentially agree on where their theories lead, but disagree on how to get there. For instance, for Silber, C1 needs supplemental postulates which hold for all rational disciplines by employing sufficient common-sense principles.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory. This identifies it within a framework of regarding the morality of an action being guided by the consequences it produces. The normative morality of utilitarianism places its locus of the rightfulness of an action being that which produces the most happiness and the least of pain. The action of wrongfulness is that which is adverse, produces a higher result of pain and less of happiness. This is the standard central foundation of this theory.
Moral agents must aim to maximise happiness and minimise pain. ‘The ends may justify the means’ in this theory; any act may be permissible if the consequences are good and superior to those of any alternative act. Consequentialist theories come in two parts: theory of value and principles of rightness. Theory of value specifies criteria in virtue of what outcomes count as good or bad. Consequentialist theories can be distinguished based on their specific criteria of what is viewed as fundamentally valuable, such as pleasure and happiness.
Among the Ethical Philosophy, which I find to be interesting and different from the beliefs that I have, is the Normative or Ethical Hedonism. Coming from a culture which is highly collective, this ethical philosophy is something interesting to learn as a person who strive to broaden his horizon by learning different ethical philosophy that might different from ours, yet common and acceptable by other culture. As far as our culture is concern, we believe that we must act always according to the will of our conscience and we must always follow the norms of the society for the betterment of all. Normative Hedonism is a theory which suggest that happiness must be always be given a huge importance and as much as possible “pain should be avoided.” There are two types of Normative Hedonism. The first is Hedonistic Egoism which suggest that we must “do whatever makes us happiest.” Second, the hedonistic utilitarian that aims to produce the “net happiness by all concern.” Aside from being “accused as repugnant,” the theory seems contrary to my own values and free will, nevertheless it stir my interest because I want to know how a person behaves when this theory applies to him/her.
My views on human nature are very similar to the beginning of the year, I honestly believe that humans are inclined to do good for our benefit. The traditional rationalist theory resonates with me the most because of the way it defines the characteristics of a human. Plato describes humans as having three essential qualities: aggression, desire, and reason. Wherein the human uses reason to control the others, the aspect of this belief that supports my view is that if a person has learned to restrain and control his or her appetites and aggressive impulses the person will gain the ability to do what reason says is best. It is implied that reason is good because we are not giving into impulses that cause us to do harmful things.
Rawls, on the other side, rightfully assumes (in my opinion), that we are responsible for making our choices, in order to come up with the fairest society for all. What one needs to do, is simply to try imagining the advantaged position of theirs, as inexistent, because otherwise, it would be not possible to put everyone in the hypothetical original position. Human beings then, opting to always apply the Rawlsian MaxiMin Principle, meaning choosing risk-aversely the best position of the worst, would come up with something that would be acceptable and fair for all. But what Rawls fails to address, is the fact that the responsibility doesn’t rely only on the way we come up with a fair society, but responsibility is born right after every
Consequentialism refers to the principle that “an act’s rightness or wrongness should be judged by its consequences.”10 This guided us during decision-making that we should choose an action which can maximize good consequences. 1 Utilitarianism, which represents the most well-known form of consequentialism, stated that we should make our choices with the one produces the maximum pleasure for the largest number of people.2 This theory has long been subject to criticism for failing to do the moral rightness. In this essay, I shall discuss three main criticisms of consequentialist approach to decision making addressed in class and how we can respond to tthem. 1) Failure to respect individuals’ rights As per Bernard Williams, “Utilitarianism