Utilitarianism, we have concluded, is unlikely to generate a psychologically realistic set of motivations. To see this remember that at the individual level additive separability tends to foster an abstract relation to our future selves. In a similar fashion, in an inter-generational optimization problem we tend to see other people as abstract individuals, as strangers, and it is hard to explain why we should have an interest in their well-being or advantage. Our relation to our own future selves, then, is as problematic as it is to the lives of those in the future-as thinkers such as Hazlitt (2009) and Sidgwick (Gray, 2011) clearly understood. Moreover, utilitarianism can, it is argued, weaken the sense of continuity in another way. Since …show more content…
I can, it is argued, harm or benefit them but they cannot have a similar impact on me. Also, the strength of my concern for them is limited because my relation to them is sustained only by the imagination or successively weakening degrees of altruism or by abstract reasoning. ‘The other’ is an abstraction and not the same as a ‘thou,’ or my neighbor. In addition, given that their existence, number, identity and values may be unknown or unrecognizable, is concern about the interests of future generations even …show more content…
Under this view-which is inextricably linked with both cyclical time and a richer understanding of oikenomics-we have a greater degree of obligation to the maintenance, sustenance, nurturing and care of both other people as well as the environment. In contrast, the idea of limitless growth and the linear progression of time has gone hand-in-hand with an emphasis on a non-relational view of the individual and with scarcity. In linear time we count our losses and the remembrance of things past rises to the surface-if at all-by sheer coincidence. In a similar vein to Baier, Scheffler (2013) maintains that at least part of what goes in to making us ‘valuing creatures’ is the sense of objects, ways of life and individual lives continuing over time. The deep-rooted need for temporal extension may manifest itself in the high regard we give to remembrance, rituals and repetition on the one hand, and the importance of future-directed attitudes (intentions, expectations) and words on the other. A life without these features may “come to seem fractured and disjointed” (Scheffler,
Traumatic experiences seem to stretch over an era, while those treasured seem the merest second. The perspective of how time is perceived presents a unique viewpoint on a series of coinciding
The concept of future can be imperceptible. It is forged by our present and untouchable past of our life. Relationships can be maintained if built on the foundation of strong undisputed past. Yet, if built upon the uncertainty of past they come crumbling down. Ignorance and selfishness starts to blossom in our veins.
This problem arises because, in different outcomes, different people would exist. I therefore call this the Non-Identity Problem” (Parfit, 378). One of the caveats that exists for the Non-Identity Problem is that we cannot appeal to these future people’s rights for different reasons. For example, we cannot appeal to the rights of future people because there is no way we can communicate with them. Furthermore, we can morally make these decisions, even though they may be bad for some future people, on the assumption that they will have a life much better than ours (Parfit,
As a college student, I am always keeping myself updated with different new university policies because many policies are impacting my college life. Although many policies are impacting me in school, college tuition is the most important to me. The increase of college tuition at U.C and CSU will cause many problems for students. The school administration thinks that is the time to increase student tuition, but students will not benefit from the increase. Therefore, my paper will offer a utilitarian evaluation of the recent CSU and UC increase in tuition, it will show that said policy is unethical from a business and social standpoint.
Brave new world - Essay I look at this from a utilitarian perspective were the moral thing is to do the most good for the most amount of people. The individual, while important in any sense, is only relevant in terms of the community as a whole. It is very similar to the question of individual versus collective happiness. The happiness of the most amount of people is better than letting the individual decide for oneself.
Utilitarianism is the moral theory that the action that people should take it the one that provides the greatest utility. In this paper I intend to argue that utilitarianism is generally untenable because act and rule utilitarianism both have objections that prove they cannot fully provide the sure answer on how to make moral decisions and what will be the ultimate outcome. I intend to do this by defining the argument for act and rule utilitarianism, giving an example, presenting the objections to act and rule utilitarianism and proving that utilitarianism is untenable. Both act and rule utilitarianism attempt to argue that what is right or wrong can be proven by what morally increases the well being of people. Act utilitarianism argues that
Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people?
We should value nature and its animals much more (Becker, 1971). In today’s world we have what Becker calls a “power-saw mentality” (Becker, 1971, p. 114). Instead we’re greedy with what nature has to offer us. “Man takes what nature offers us, but usually only what he needs” (Becker, 1971, p. 114). There is a psychological difference in today’s world of what we enjoy out of nature (Becker, 1971).
Singer's theory of preference utilitarianism rests on the idea that everyone's preferences should be looked at equally. This means that all living and sentient beings have interests, can feel pain and pleasure. Preferences, in this case, does not mean happiness necessarily. Looking at happiness specifically, is another type of utilitarianism that will be discussed further in the later part of this essay. Singer includes people with severe disabilities, animals, intelligent aliens, and infants to the list of beings that need to be considered.