Utilitarianism only considers one normative factor, the maximization of overall happiness, consequently, it often conflicts with our common-sense morality and permits immoral actions as well as great individual deviation from social norms. For instance, utilitarianism permits immoral practices such as sadism by implying that sadistic acts are the right acts to perform if the sadist derives more pleasure from this practice than their victims derive pain. This is because they would be maximizing the overall amount of happiness/well-being. This belief conflicts with the existing moral intuitions of many who believe that the torturing of innocent people for pleasure is by no means acceptable, let alone the right action to perform. An example that demonstrates instances where utilitarianism can give us the morally wrong answer as to which act we ought to perform, involves a surgeon who is faced with the decision of killing one healthy patient, harvesting their organs and transplanting them into five patients who are dying in order to save their lives or doing nothing and allowing the five sick patients to die.
Immanuel Kant’s The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is his first crucial attempt to provide moral philosophy, and his work has endures a standout among the most powerful philosophers. Kant’s analysis can be perceived as a foundation for imminent studies by clarifying the major ideas and rules of moral rationale and demonstrating that they are subordinated to rational factors. He seeks to prove that the discovery of the principle of morality is achievable. What is more, he grants a revolutionary assertion the rightness of a choice is controlled by the nature of the principle an individual decides to follow. Therefore, Kant’s moral sense theories often are depicted as strikingly unconventional.
He states that ethical principles must be universal and that ethics are distinctively human. Kant also thought it was possible for pure reason to discover objective ethical truths. Kant believed that ethical truths must be categorical, universal, and be the product of reason. Kant’s categorical imperative states that a person should always act in such a way that they could will that act should be a universal law. This means that Kant thought that it was best to do the right thing, even if the person didn’t want to.
(Utilitarianism 1861) Instrumental value: when something is valuable because help us to reach some particular end. Ex. Money. (Fundamentals of Ethics) Utilitarianism seeks the most happiness. The other theory is Deontology, Immanuel Kant a German philosopher; he develops a theory that the only thing that has intrinsically value is a good will.
If somebody using an utilitarian approach thinks an action would bring the most pleasure or happiness to the majority of people then it would be the right thing to do. The advantages of the utilitarian theory is that proponents believe that morality can make life better when the amount of good things is increased and bad
Reflected in many of the most important policy decisions of today is the philosophy of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the moral idea that “what is right (or a duty) is whatever maximizes the total amount of net utility.” Utilitarianism, at the time of its introduction, was a revolutionary moral philosophy. This is because utilitarianism underscores the idea that the consequences of a person’s actions are the most morally significant. So it is not the agent’s well-being that is morally significant, but instead the maximum well-being of others In terms of public policy, politicians often use utilitarianism in the form of “cost-benefit analysis” in order to make decisions. Cost-benefit analysis uses utility to “approximate the principle that
Utilitarian relates to euthanasia because utilitarianism means that if an action benefits a group than it is justified by the church. Many church groups believe in utilitarianism. However, it reject moral codes that are based on customs, tradition or beliefs. Utilitarianism is also the core idea of wrong actions will leave to negative things and vise versa. The church something is sinful based on the consequences that come with it.
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.
Then there is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism considers two principles. The first one is the principle of equality: everyone’s interests count, whether black or white, animal or human, male or female. The second one is the principle of utility: the act that would bring about the best balance between satisfaction and frustration for everyone affected by the outcome should be the act to do. Although a utilitarian takes everyone’s interest into account, it has no room for equality of worth or inherent value of individuals.