Utilitarianism holds a view on the subject of morality of self-interest with the intentions of always doing well for all around. It would have to be a universally accepted action where it would do no harm to all involved. This theory holds a different view on happiness and where everyone’s happiness is equal to one another, there is no hierarchy of happiness among us all. The thought of utilitarianism is a great one, though in a sense that if it was possible we would all hold a similar level of happiness and when deciding on our actions we would consider the happiness of other as much as we held our own happiness. Although with this idea of utilitarianism we come to the problem of most humans being inconsiderate of others and how their intentions would have an effect on others lives.
That was his way of speaking up and doing something for the better of everyone. However, that was against Ticktockman’s belief of what the good is. The reason why it is hard to look at this story from Utilitarianism perspective is that Utilitarianism’s main idea is to make choices for the greatest happiness for the greatest number. It is hard to define what the word “good” means. According to Harlequin going against society’s rule, and freeing people from Ticktockman’s fear is the greatest good.
This seems to make sense, as if one is a moral person, there must be some aim of the morality. She continues this by saying “For surely he must want others to be happy. To deny this would be to deny that benevolence is a virtue-and who wants to deny that?” (47) By saying this, she says that benevolence, or caring about others’ welfare or happiness, is definitely a virtue. She then continues, “a benevolent person must often aim at the good of others and call it ‘a good thing’” (48). This provides an adequate definition of what a benevolent person is.
Why won't they let anyone read? People would never know what is actually right and wrong. Montag wants to change this cruel society and spread individuality, the most important characteristic anyone can have. If you have no independent thinking in society, it will become corrupt. You need leaders to have a thriving society and without different outlooks on issues it will take longer to solve the issue.
In its simplest form, consequentialism requires that one maximizes the overall well being of any situation whenever possible. Consequentialism also promotes impartiality and moral flexibility. In other words, consequentialism treats everyone as equals and allows for more wiggle room when it comes to breaking certain moral rules as long as the means justify the ends. Although there is no exact way to calculate the overall well being, John Stuart Mill suggested that we focus on “the greatest good for the greatest number” (Shafer-Landau 122). On the surface, consequentialism may seem like a viable moral theory.
This individual was usually pegged as strange by others because everyone was used to be being enclosed in their bubbles. “That so few dare to be eccentric, marks the chief danger of the time.” Mill urged society to take notice that they were missing out on all the uniqueness that life brings to each individual. “The whole object of Liberty is to argue that we must safeguard these goods, the ultimate goods of individual life, and that we must safeguard them by leaving people the room to experiment and inquire into them.” Mill stressed that individuals should be given the right to diversify and expand without conforming. To be brief, Mill did not want society to lose its diversity aspect because nobody would be happy in a uniform
In this essay, I will show that Immanuel Kant is wrong to think that the only good without limitation is the good will. My first step in defending this thesis will be to review Kant’s argument about how the good will is intrinsically good. I will then try to undermine his view by showing it supports implausible claims. For example, the premise of Kant’s claim is that good will is unconditioned. However, the good will may depend on outside factors to bring about good in a person.
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 fails to respect the fundamental integrity of a person”.3 As long as the majority are satisfied, minorities can be abused. As discussed in the frictional example of ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas’, by living in a Omelas society where utilitarianism prevails, our wellbeing is said to be built on the misery of others.4 However, every coin has two sides.
There are a few significant aspects of this definition. First, it shows utility, or the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as both the basis of everything that people desire, and as the foundation of morality. However, utilitarianism does not say that it is right for individuals to simply pursue what makes them personally happy. Rather, morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle, that is, moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework.
Focusing on the emotions of the people and taking care of their passion is a moral and ethical norm which should never be forgotton. Kant mainly considered this value in his theory as an important factor. Objective theory: Objective theory is a give and take theory in which beyond the desires passions and feelings of a certain person the desires of is considered with equal morality. Basically it is the opinion of everyone. Kant’s ethical theory is based on objective morality that involves the happiness of everyone.