When discussing both act and rule utilitarianism, it is important to understand that both of them agree in terms of the overall consequence of an action, because they emphasize on creating the most beneficial pleasure and happiness in the outcome of an act. Despite this fact, they both have different principles and rules that make them different from each other. Act utilitarianism concentrates on the acts of individuals. Meaning that if a person commits an action, he/she must at least have a positive utility. The founders of utilitarianism define positive utility as happiness and pleasure and consider it to be a driving force of all positive and morally right acts.
For an argument to be purely Utilitarian, the following three requisites must be met – the consequences of the act should have an overall positive value (which in turn determines the ethics of the act); this value of the consequences is then assessed by the amount of overall utility produced and essentially there needs to be “impartiality - where each person’s happiness must equate another’s happiness. The utility present in this argument is general “welfare”; for the organ recipients, organ donors and their respective families. Alternatives to the word welfare, by definition, is “well-being” or “organised help given to people in need” – according to the Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus. Upon analysis of each requisite, it is evident that welfare is illustrated in some form or another. To address the first element of U, the writer mentions that the lives of the ill-patients
As a result, I think it is morally permissible to torture if it results in greater happiness. This view is called utilitarianism where the main principle is to maximize utility, which is happiness or the prevention of pain. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that was founded by moral philosopher Jeremy Bentham. According to him, happiness and pain govern human actions, and so morality’s main principle is to “maximize happiness” and minimize pain (Sandel, pg. 34).
A consequentialist looks at the pros and cons of a situation and then takes action. Although consequentialists and utilitarian’s have some differences, when talking about savior siblings their ethics line up, and can be used interchangeably. They would agree that a savior sibling would be morally permissible because it maximizes utility, the family and child are both happy because their child now has better chance at survival. No matter the metal/physical wellbeing of the child, as long as the act generates maximum pleasure. Unlike a Kantian, a utilitarian would do as much as they can to bring about pleasure, even if it meant putting the second child in danger/pain to save the first child’s life.
First, the theory of ethical egoism. According to this theory, “actions are morally right because they maximize self-interest” (Farias, 2012, slide 6). When occupational therapists agree to perform duties or work on skills that are outside of the OT scope of services, they are working to promote their own self-interests and well-being. It feels good to help others and when we believe that we are going above and beyond to keep our clients happy, we are doing what is in our best interests.
Ken in his book defined: "Credibility is your reputation" - to demonstrate the various characteristics and qualities of being honest, competent, visionary and the ability to inspire others from our point of view. Credible leaders are those perceived by followers as possessing these enduring qualities of trust and expertise. Trust is the foundational component of being credible, which in turn improves our abilities to influence others. Trusted leaders are more likely to be believed. Regarding of our level of expertise, if we are cannot be trusted by others, we cannot be a credible and effective
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
Chloe I found your paragraph on hegemony and the achievement ideology really interesting. While I find your point on the achievement ideology fascinating, according to the class article by Lull (1995), in order to conform to these “norms” people must believe they’ve agreed to them and that these actions are in their best interest. According to Lull, even if these rule and ideas aren’t their own, people still willing agree to them because they think conforming to these practices will bring them success (Lull, 1997). That is why hegemonic power works so well. People believe by following these rules that are shared by a community, they can still attain their own form of achievement.
Consequential Ethics: A consequential ethical theory is the one in which the action or its rightness or wrongness is judged on the basis of the consequences it produced. A simple approach to consider this is the expression or phrase is the “end justify the means”. The best example would be of the concept of “utilitarianism”, which means greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
The general idea and the foundation about utilitarianism are all about doing something to maximize the happiness and minimize the misery and pain. According to this theory, an act is moral as they tend to increase the happiness or pleasure and reduce misery or pain. This idea, is developed from the father of utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham’s axiom “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong” (Bentham J., 1776).
With World War II leaving high tensions between the United States and the USSR, and both nations assuming a policy of mutual destruction the president was commonly forced to make powerful choices that could determine the fate of billions of lives. In Fall-Safe(1964) a group of pilots routinely fly out to their fail safe zones upon the US’s command base issuing an alert due to a off-course civilian jet. However, one group of pilots received a false go and traveled beyond their fail safe point to bomb Moscow, leaving it up to the president to stop a potential all-out war with the USSR. Analyzing the president’s actions with a utilitarian position, we can arrive at the conclusion that the president acted morally despite the unspeakable consequences of his actions.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that the best action is the one that maximizes helpfulness. In this theory, punishment is warranted only if it promotes over-all happiness. C.S. Lewis refers to utilitarianism as humanitarian in his essay. Contrary to the general humanitarian viewpoint, which sees punishment as precautionary, Lewis believes that it denies criminals of their humanity. He states, "when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a 'case."
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory summed up by the phrase, the right action is one which creates the sum total amount of happiness for the greatest number. Therefore, utilitarians believe that morality’s purpose is to maximise the number of good things, such as happiness, and decrease the number of bad things, such as unhappiness, in the world. Critics of utilitarianism believe that this theory cannot accommodate moral rights since we go against our intuitions in moral dilemmas. However, utiltarians have a response to these criticisms which shows that utilitarianism is defensible. Utilitarianism was developed into an ethical theory by two philosophers named Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.