1.Utilitarianism decides what is morally right and wrong based off the amount happiness a decision creates compared to the unhappiness is caused by the decision. So if a majority of people would benefit and a minority would not then the decision is still morally right. Utilitarianism is also based more in facts then divine or religious codes. This does mean that what is and is not morally right can change as more facts are known. 2.
““On the view of these philosophers, a life can be meaningful only if it can mean something to someone, and not just to someone, but to someone other than oneself and indeed someone of more intrinsic or ultimate value than oneself.” (The Meanings of Lives, page 13) Of course, not everyone is going to have the same values. However, in order to have a successful society, people must pursue values that are not only important to themselves, but will also benefit and impact others. I agree with this, however I believe it is important that they value benefit both the person and others. Doing something just for someone else all the time is not fair to the person doing the actions. They must live their life with things that are of value to them too.
The Rule-utilitarians stablish that every person should follow rules that have been implemented for the good and happiness of the society. The Act-utilitarians do not focus on implementing rules but rather on the single actions and their consequences. Utilitarianism is useful for developing ethical arguments that justify the suffering of some for the happiness of the majority. For example public policy
Unlike utilitarianism, deontology requires that you set certain boundaries to one 's actions. Fried describes that the deontological perception involves taking into account how to achieve its goals because the act has a moral significance. Unethical acts like lying, slavery, denying, and harmless innocence can not be justified, although it could lead to a lot of good in some cases. For example, a follower of deontology would not argue that a person is happy if this happiness was caused by the suffering of an innocent person. Utilitarism, on the other hand, believes it is permissible to inflict an innocent person harm if this causes more happiness as a consequence of the action.
The beneficial side of ego is that it “constitutes the essential identity of a human being” (Rand Introduction) but the detrimental side, according to visionlaunch.com, is that it can “completely eliminate objectivity”. If people didn’t care for themselves, then they wouldn’t know how to care for others and vice
Paul Bloom is a philosopher who has written empathy and whether or not it is a good guide in life. According to Bloom, empathy makes a poor guide. Rather than relying on empathy to be a guide, Bloom insists that there is a set of characteristics that allows one to do good and become a “good person.” These characteristics are compassion and kindness, intelligence, self-control, a sense of justice, and a healthy amount of anger. While most of his argument is agreeable, Bloom believes that there needs to be a distance between the caregiver and the receiver, which will be produced by compassion, kindness, and intelligence. This, however, is shown to be flawed in the text Benito Cereno, written by Herman Melville.
He also had said that each of us has goodness inside of everyone, though that’s as individuals. But individuals together make up a greater portion and makes a society that should be changing what is good. Yet, the opposite is true as well. That if we as citizens don’t behave and create positive vibes, or influences others, it will cause bad morals and bad character. I think that Mencius was focused on creating a better person and from that, there will be good that
In an article, Warren stated that “We tend to judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their actions” (Warren 1). This is because no one can truly know what a person 's motives are, but they can know their own intentions. It is easier to conclude an idea of a person based on what one can see and know for sure. A person can have good intentions, but the outcome may turn out unfavorable, knowing the final action is simpler to judge because it can be known for sure. Warren also stated that “If we judged ourselves by how our actions are perceived by others, we may become more sensitive and understanding of any hurtful responses by them” (Warren 1).
Utilitarianism is the view that right actions are those that result in the most beneficial balance of good over bad consequences for everyone involved. This principle acknowledges in the real world we cannot always just benefit others or just avoid harming them. Some philosophers concentrated on different types of utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of actions depends solely on the relative good produced by individual actions. An act is considered right in a particular situation if it produces a greater product of good over bad in comparison to alternative acts.
According to theory the outcomes will be judged weather the action was morally right or wrong. As per this theory the outcome of any action should minimize the pain and maximize the pleasure. The utilitarianism have two groups one is the Act utilitarian’s focun on the effects of individual actions (Such as Nathuram Godse’s assassination of Mahatma Gandhi) and another is rule utilitarian’s those focus on the effects of types of actions (such as killing or stealing) Utilitarians believe that the purpose of morality is to make life better by increasing the amount of good things (such as pleasure and happiness) in the world and decreasing the amount of bad things (such as pain and unhappiness). They reject moral codes or systems that consist of commands or taboos that are based on customs, traditions, or orders given by leaders