...matters. The debate between Kant and Mill is precisely whether our sense of duty can be compromised by appeals to consequences. Utilitarianism and Kant’s theory both have similarities, strengths and weaknesses. An instrumental good is something that helps you achieve something else. If there are only instrumental goods, then A is good because it helps bring the outcome of B, which is good because it helps bring the outcome of C, and so on, therefore our notion of goodness has no anchor. To some people this seems irrational, and they think goodness must have an anchor, they want to posit an "intrinsic" good somewhere. Both utilitarians and Kantians agree there is an intrinsic good. They also agree in being monists rather than pluralists about goodness. There is one and only one intrinsic good for both of them. If asked what is that good? Utilitarians would say pleasure. Kantians say a good will.“Kants theory has less scope than utilitarianism. Katians do not claim to discover whether acts whose maxims they do not know fully just.”(O’Neill 169) Both theories have strengths. Utilitarianism is a consequential theory, they believe that good consequences are what makes an act good, basing its...
Words: 820 - Pages: 4
...Are You Happy? According to John Stuart Mill, what does it mean to act rightly or be good? Mill states how people are inclined to act rather than how they should act. He states in his essay written in 1861, Utilitarianism, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure.” Mill proves by this statement that we act in a certain way because of the greatest happiness principle; however, I am not convinced that is the way that people should act or the best way to live a moral life. Mill believes that people act the way that they do for the sake of happiness. It is even good to cause pain to a small group of people if the result promotes happiness for a larger group. According to Mill, this is the greatest happiness principle because the actions are not based on the feelings of happiness of one but the happiness of the greatest number. I disagree with Mill’s greatest happiness principle because this is not the way that people should act. I agree that people tend to act that way; however that is not the moral way that people should behave. There is no rational connection between happiness and morality. The simple truth of the matter is that a behavior or action that makes a person happy is not sufficient in establishing that the behavior or action is morally accurate. Just because something makes one...
Words: 502 - Pages: 3
...century. Utilitarianism is an attempt to provide an answer to the question what a man should do in order to produce the best consequences possible for all persons affected from the action he undertakes Utilitarianism trusts on some theory of intrinsic value, meaning that when something is held to be good, all other values are assumed to deduce their worth from their relation to this intrinsic good as a means to an end. . The utilitarian takes all the happiness and suffering or pain produced by the act into consideration independent of the fact whether arising after the act has been performed or during its performance. The happiness can be considered as the result of the gathered happiness of each person involved. Utilitarianism is based on the assumption that it is possible to evaluate the consequences of two different actions by comparing their intrinsic values. Utilitarianism tries to create a complex but fair system of ethics by establishing several generalizing principles. Nevertheless, there are various problems concerning the applicability of utilitarian theory, the main problem is the subordination of the individual under the common mark since each individual has a different perception of what happiness is and how it can be obtained. Due to the fact that in most cases the individual’s idea does not correspond to that of the others, it seems impossible to believe in the existence of man’s altruism to that high extent that the subordination of the individual under the common...
Words: 1899 - Pages: 8
...Abstract Ethics are a set of acceptable principles that guide the way individuals should act in a given situation. Utilitarian Ethics is morally right acts that bring the most happiness to individuals. For instance, utilitarian ethics main focus is happiness and what decision will produce the maximum amount of happiness for everyone involved. Jeremy Bentham believed that individuals were governed by two masters, which are pleasure and pain. The utility test helps individuals select the best outcome that will result in the most happiness and minimize pain or discomfort. Utilitarian Ethics Utilitarian Ethics is the theory that "an action is morally right if and only if it produces at least as much good (utility) for all people affected by the action as any alternative action the person could do instead" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd ed). Utilitarian Ethics is morally right acts that bring the most happiness to individuals. Jeremy Bentham believed that individuals were governed by two masters, which are pleasure and pain. The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier is facing a utilitarian ethical problem. This paper will address the key utilitarian ethical problem(s) confronting the supplier/transistor company in this Case. In addition, the paper will also identify what advice Jeremy Bentham would give to the company, and apply the application of Steps A through D of the Utility Test to the company. Furthermore, this paper will compare and contrast the results...
Words: 2058 - Pages: 9
...promote any ads for users. The deal’s enormous price tag brings a lot of question into Zuckerberg’s rationale behind his decision and if the pros outweigh the cons. Consequentialism is focused on the basic consequences that come with decisions and determining net balance between the good consequences and the bad ones. Zuckerberg’s decision to buy WhatsApp is consistent with his goal of connecting the entire world, especially developing countries, through technology. The app has over 450 million users. There almost as many messages sent using the app as there are text messages sent in the entire world per year. It allows Facebook to improve the app and help people from all over the world to share information quickly and efficiently. Utilitarian ethics revolves around maximizing net benefits for all parties involved with the decision, which brings the question, is the 19 billion dollar cost for the acquisition able to maximize the net benefits in...
Words: 717 - Pages: 3
...Utilitarian and Hedonic Products Christine Squires MKTG 310/ Consumer Behavior Professor Kimberly Roberts June 7th, 2015 Utilitarian and Hedonic Product Consumers’ choices to buy a product are persuaded by utilitarian and hedonic considerations. In most cases, it is found that hedonic goods are purchased for luxury consumption for fun, pleasure and excitement. For example – designer cloths, ZR1 Corvette, luxury diamond earrings, 80” LCD TV for my husband’s man cave etc. While utilitarian goods are purchased for instrumental or functional use. Essentially these goods are purchased for full filling the basic needs. The examples of these are like my children’s computers for school, replacing broken lawn mower for a newer version, water heater (economical), tires for car, every day shoes for my two children etc. While buying the hedonic product, a consumer thinks from form the luxury point of view, while to buy the utilitarian product, he thinks from the necessity point of view that can full fill his basic needs without any additional features. Both utilitarian and hedonic consumption of the product is discretionary choice of the consumer and the difference between these two decisions is the matter of degree of perception. We can take the example of a Chrysler Town and country Minivan . One consumer can buy it for talking in emergency time in their family members while the other consumer’s need to buy a mobile phone can be chatting with their friends through internet or...
Words: 523 - Pages: 3
...Ethics PH 210 Unit 2 Farzin Sedghi Lesson 2 1. The Utilitarianism explains that whatever we do matters if it consequently makes us happy or even unhappy. Therefore, nothing else has a part in terms of not making the individuals happy or unhappy. I say unhappy because things that we do or things that happens to us can unintentionally makes us unhappy at the end, however, if we consider the idea of causality, a chain of cause and effect can bring us a chain of happiness and unhappiness. Things that makes us as a society unhappy, we tend to avoid, and things that makes us happy we tend to do more. But what happens if, for instance, something that was supposed to make us happy in the future has been replaced with the sense of sadness and despair. For example, if one’s dream was to fly an airplane and become a pilot was crushed after an unfortunate accident in which the individual loses his eye vision. Then we can see that in this series of cause and effect there was a cause that worked as an obstacle in front of him not to achieve his ultimate happiness which was being a pilot and therefore, not becoming an important part of a society which can, for instance, keep us safe in the sky and so make us happy. However, is it true that what was left for him was merely a sense of unhappiness? What can the individual do to prevent such accident in the future? Does that even matter since the individual already lost his eyes? Therefore, we come to an understanding that what makes us happy...
Words: 1795 - Pages: 8
...It was discussed in the paper that there are a lot of changes in our society today, and this change painted a whole different picture on how the world works now. The transformative developments of our era are globalization, communications technologies, and financialisation. The word “development” synonymies with growth and progress, which what happened to us now. This has brought efficiency, new opportunities, easier connection to everyone around the globe, new products of innovations, wealth maximization and so much more, but with this came also it’s bad effects: inequality, information overload, financial instability, economic dislocation, inability of government to regulate capital flows, rushed decision making, family break downs, utilitarian...
Words: 780 - Pages: 4
...The Utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage future wrongdoing. This theory appears to be more humane, punishment at best would be a necessary evil. Its main focus is punishment should be an option if it is going to produce an overall good. What if making an example of someone would lead to the most overall good, this theory would see a man punished for no reason if it would bring more good than harm. However, retributive theory is good in itself that those who have acted wrongly should suffer. When this happens people get what they deserve and justice is served. In this theory there is no reason to punish an innocent man, since doing so will not bring justice. There is no question. If Dr. Greenthumb has the capability to make the immune plant and therefore save the world, a pardon is in order. In this case looking at the future harm that might come to the world if he was executed as the retributive theory would require is not worth it. The Utilitarian theory needs to be applied to save the human race from starvation, the greater good needs to be applied. Society can always lie and say he is pardoned until he creates the immune fungus then he could be taken away for punishment. It is hard to decide which theory would lead to a better society seeing that rehabilitating the person might fail and punishing him in the same way as his offense might just fuel his hatred. However, retribution to me seems like justice. If a man chose to commit a crime why shouldn’t...
Words: 291 - Pages: 2
...Singer approaches the problem of famine from a utilitarian standpoint. His argument is that it is the responsibility of humans who have the means to relieve persons affected by famine. The effort must be of more importance than material possessions and personal interest. This must also be done without consideration of locality or the moral responsibility of others. O’Neill faces a little more difficulty because she presents her argument from a Kantian standpoint, which theoretically is based on intention and not action, because of this O’Neill focuses her response on treating those afflicted justly. Using Kant’s categorical imperative O’Neill establishes the obligation-to both-not interfere with the rights of plighted individuals by not using...
Words: 826 - Pages: 4
...This video shows a theory of ethics, utilitarian bioethics that is a branch of ethics and recommends directing medical resources where they will have a more lasting effect for good. It is used implicitly in some health planning decisions, such as the use of quality-adjusted life years and the concept of triage, but it is controversial in many other cases. Utilitarian bioethics is based on the premise that the distribution of resources is a zero-sum game, so logically medical decisions must be based on the productive value and total happiness of each person in the future, in their chance to survive the Present and in the resources necessary for the treatment. For those whose cost of medical treatment or maintenance exceeds their total future economic value (because they are terminally ill, they are no longer productive and have no reasonable chance of becoming productive or happy in the foreseeable future), it is Economically efficient to release medical resources by...
Words: 457 - Pages: 2
...person yet? Many of us will never know the answer to that question. Two views I will go deeper into is the view of Immanuel Kant and the view of a Utilitarian. Immanuel Kant is a firm believer that every person has rights and that no one has the right to infringe on them. To Kant all actions should be done with doing the right thing in mind. The only problem with that is what is right to him is not necessarily correct to somebody else. Kant would believe that under no circumstance would an abortion be justifiable because it would be murder to him, tying back to the idea that no person has the right to interfere with another person’s right to life. Kant would believe it does not matter the way the women got impregnated, it is irrelevant. In other words everything Kant believed involved “Human Worth”. Killing a fetus would be destroying “worth” which goes against everything Kant stood for. His view would be that the fetus was brought into this world through another person, one of the aspects of human worth, making an abortion a non-option. Essentially Kant is saying that even if the women was raped or cannot afford to raise the child she has no right to take away a life, there would be other options not involving the taking of life. The other view, the one of the utilitarian’s disputes the thoughts of Immanuel Kant. A utilitarian is a person...
Words: 700 - Pages: 3
...Utilitarianism is the chief teleological ethical theory today which considers the consequences of an action; such as abortion. This ethical approach to abortion is useful because it determines that “an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number”. It considers the hedonic calculus, designed by Bentham, which weighs up the pleasure and pain generated by the available moral actions; the theory mainly focuses on both pleasure and pain and the ability to maximize pleasure over pain. It also emphasises the ends of abortion over its means; so it judges the rightness of abortion by the end result, possible pleasure, it produces. The views of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are significant in illustrating the effects of a Utilitarian approach to abortion. Firstly, Bentham’s version of utilitarianism, known as Act utilitarianism, is the most relevant theory to the issue of abortion. His theory remains teleological, using the outcome of an action to determine whether it is good or bad. With abortion being a personal issue, it seems that act utilitarianism is the most adequate theory because it looks at the consequences of an abortion, taking each situation into separate account of all others. This would then enable women who have been raped, for example, to choose whether they go ahead with the birth because they may not be able to live with the consequences of their situation and bring the child up with the history of the conception attached to the child, thus in...
Words: 1333 - Pages: 6
...A Utilitarian Egoists’ Approach to Ethics When an individual takes actions there is always a reason. Whether it be a subconscious inkling that’s driving them, or a religious belief, the intent is there. As for me, what is my intent? In the past I have been focused on coming to an objective conclusion to a moral dilemma. However I have come to the realization that my opinion matters and that how I benefit from the situation matters. Granted, I want what is best for the majority, but only if I am part of said majority. I find nothing wrong with choosing an answer that suits me best, while keeping the well-being of others in mind. We all have different methods of discerning whether or not something is the “right” thing to do or if it is done for the “right” reasons. After much contemplation and the review of my ethical inventories, I have developed my own method. I have embraced my subjective biases and past experiences and combined them with my drive to better myself and achieve happiness and reduce the consequences. I have been called egotistical in the past, and I rejected it completely, now I am embracing it but with a twist. This new approach to ethics, one that may seem to be an oxymoron, but also one I find fundamentally sound, is that of a utilitarian egoist. The first misconception I had over three months ago, before I had made the plunge into the endless sea of ethics, was that doing something for others for the sole purpose of self-happiness was wrong. It surprises...
Words: 853 - Pages: 4
...Just because someone doesn’t love the same way as you do does not make them wrong or make them crazy, it makes them unique. Majority of people around the world feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman and that gays should not have that right because they believe being gay is morally wrong. But if by using the utilitarian approach we could see that by legalizing same-sex marriage we will not only benefit the people but also the economy. Would the end justify the means? First legalizing same-sex marriage would bring in between $20 million and $40 million more per year in taxes, according to University of Michigan. In The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau reported that there are 601,209 unmarried same-sex partner households in the United States living in 99.3% of all counties in the nation. Now imagine that numbers of people will begging to prepare weeding plans if same-sex marriage became legal in all the states. The utility of this approach will maximize the economy of our country and will also increase the collective happiness of the people who can finally marry those that they love. According to Bride's Magazine, “the average wedding costs $19,000”. Two hundred-fifty thousand more marriages at the average wedding rate would result in wedding costs of $4.75 billion! Mind you, this doesn't include the amount spent on wedding gifts. Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs after all they will need flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services...
Words: 912 - Pages: 4
