This theory allows us to understand relationships in a personal advantage standpoint, but this standpoint is different for everyone and evolves as our lives do. This theory forces us to detach emotions and find a distinct purpose of each relationship, taking away from the uniqueness of relationships. The examples from F.R.I.E.N.D.S are both dramatized for the sake of entertainment but they both illustrate how humans cannot avoid being selfish even if they have good intentions. This theory’s principles are rooted in our individualist society that values the individual’s needs over the groups, which devalues these important interpersonal
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.
Values, although tend to be stable, they can be changed or can be developed because values have cognitive, affective and behavioural components (Baillie & Black, 2015). Potter and Perry (2014) added that values influence behaviour basing on a conviction that a certain action is right depending on the given circumstances. Culture, society and personality were identified by Rokeach (1973, as cited in Baillie & Black, 2015) as key precedent of human values. Furthermore, as a person becomes more aware of and reflective about him/herself, he/she can consider to change his/her value set and will also result in modifying his/her attitudes and behaviour. By understanding one’s own personal values, he or she will become sensitive to the values of others.
It depends on the consequences (you must or must not). ONLY consequences, outcome orientated. Action vs Intention. Focuses on increasing the sense of pleasure, happiness, preference or interest. Act = maximises the good.
Different effects may have different intensities for different individuals. Probability allows us to weigh the likelihood of an effect happening, should we act in a certain way. Rule Utilitarianism is similar to Act Utilitarianism in that it uses the principle of utility, however, Rule Utilitarianism decides what one’s moral principles ought to be, rather than telling one how to act. Many individuals believe Act Utilitarianism is too difficult, but it is probable to reject Act Utilitarianism, while maintaining Rule Utilitarianism. Rule Utilitarianism is made up of two foundational principles: Principles of Rules and of Acts.
Additionally, this ability to understand and accommodate equips the individual with the power to utilize their personal emotions and personality advantages to comprehend and regulate with others they interact with. Alternatively, the Trait model is so dependent on the personality of an individual in order to evaluate emotional quotient, some believe the Trait model does not have the legitimacy to assess emotional quotient. It is believed that the Trait model is better off within the groundwork of cognitive-emotional ability. However, this model does include elemental factors that correlate with emotional intelligence. References: The Bar-On Model of Emotional-Social Intelligence 9ESI)1 Reuven Bar-On University of Texas Medical Branch Original Reference Bar-On, R. (2006) Emotional Intelligence: The Ability Model.
They are values put into action and are expectations of behaviour. They provide a guideline of how to behave in a situation. These are usually unwritten, conditional and change over time. There are two types of norms-mores and folkways. Mores are more central and have great moral significance whereas folkways are norms for routine behaviours.
M. Hare’s argument, it can be seen that there exists some issues with utilitarianism. Or, simply apply utilitarianism to this world, and use utilitarianism code to make every decision is wrong since the code of utilitarianism loss consistency in real world. According to utilitarianism, the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, or happiness. However, happiness is complex. It is generally acknowledged that people who have their physical and emotional needs satisfied and their human rights guaranteed are happy.
You are guided by your feelings. Your social value is a major factor in your decision making process. You take a subjective approach and think of others when making decisions. Your perceiving relates to your sensing and intuition. You prefer not to be tied to a set schedule for determining what you want to do with your time.
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.