Act Utilitarianism Essay

As humans we have made many choices in our lives, some are quick and easy while others are difficult and takes time. But did we ever wonder if our choices are right or wrong? What is morally right? According to utilitarianism's fundamental principle of morality, the right choice is always the one that maximizes utility, it is the one that brings the most happiness and the least suffering. On paper this looks very good and ideal, because let's face it pretty much everyone wants happiness since it brings them pleasure and no one wants to suffer. However despite that, there have been many objections to this theory, one of which says utilitarianism is too high for humanity in which I disagree, this

Act-utilitarianism also comes under fire from common sense morality. Actions that we would intuitively say were morally impermissible, such as killing an innocent, can often be condoned by act-utilitarian reasoning. For example, in a situation where, for some reason, five innocents could only be saved by the killing of one innocent, by act-utilitarian standards it seems it would be morally permissible to kill this person to save the other five as quantitatively this would

Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. It is the authors opinion that these claims are factually incorrect and this essay shall attempt to prove this through analysis of common arguments against AU, and modifying AU to allow for justice to be more readily accounted for.

Among the most glaring problems that I see with Utilitarianism is its inclusion of animals under the umbrella that blankets this theory. It seems irrefutable that there exists an inordinate number of cases where the consequence that is against the best interest of an animal is favorable to humans, yet that dictating action is one that has been continually taken and condoned by the general public. This is a fundamental challenge, as the Utilitarian philosophy decrees that the pleasure and pain experienced by all individuals, including animals, has equal worth and must be considered when determining the net benefit of an action’s consequences.

Act utilitarianism has two different versions. One versions says that an act is right if and only if its actual consequences would contain at least as much utility as of those of any other act open to the agent. Another version claims that an act is right if and only its expected utility is at least as great as that of any

For example, there is a hunter who wonders if it is morally acceptable to kill a deer. Act Utilitarianism analyzes the effects of this one action to decide if it is moral by assigning a value to the amount of pleasure and pain each individual involved will experience. In this case the hunter and his family will experience the pleasure of having food from eating the deer, many of the neighbors of the hunter will experience pleasure by having the deer off their property, and the deer’s family will experience the pain of the loss of a family member. If the outcome is that the net value of pleasure is greater than the pain caused by the killing of the deer, it is morally right for the hunter to kill it.

The action you pick must provide the most overall value compared to its other alternatives when trying to answer a moral conflict. This moral theory is most concerned with the utility of one's individual action. Act utilitarianism is impartial because it weighs everyone’s welfare the same. An example to best illustrate this theory in action is the trolley case. In the trolley case you are determining whether to save five and lose one. An act utilitarian would say that if you don’t save the five, you wont produce the most overall net utility if you decided to save the one

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that has long been the subject of philosophical debate. This theory, when practiced, appears to set a very basic guideline to follow when one is faced with a moral dilemma. Fundamental Utilitarianism states that when a moral dilemma arises, one should take action that causes favorable results or reduces less favorable results. If these less favorable results, or pain, occur from this action, it can be justified if it is produced to prevent more pain or produce happiness. Stating the Utilitarian view can summarize these basic principles: "the greatest good for the greatest number". Utilitarians are to believe that if they follow this philosophy, that no matter what action they take, it

In chapter 9, I found utilitarianism the most intriguing lesson. It is a theory of ethics that assesses actions based on maximizing benefits in reducing the negatives; based on bouncing human interests. It was developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, it is a socially conscious approach to hedonism that holds that the greatest good is to promote happiness and alleviate suffering for the greatest number of people. ( Chaffee, 9.3) Utilitarianism is the most common moral theory practiced in the business world today, to break down what it is basically is morality of an act is judged by it's utility. The greatest utility that it has for the most people;

Describe the main principles of the two normative ethical theories of deontology and utilitarianism. Compare and contrast the two theories, bringing out any problems or limitations you see in each.

In regard to Mill’s Proof of utility, N7 disputes claiming that it commits the fallacy of composition. He is not the first to do so. “Such allegations began to emerge in Mill’s lifetime, shortly after the publication of Utilitarianism, and persisted for well over a century.”(1) It is important to note however that “the tide has been turning in recent discussions.”(1) Necip Fikri Alican’s even wrote an entire book on this entitled, “Mill’s Principle of Utility: A Defense of John Stuart Mill’s Notorious Proof.” Several others have also rejected the claim of fallacy. “Hall and Popkin defend Mill against this accusation pointing out that he begins Chapter Four by asserting that "questions of ultimate ends do not admit of proof, in the ordinary acceptation of the term" and that this is "common to all first principles." According to Hall and Popkin, therefore, Mill does not attempt to "establish that what people do desire is desirable but merely attempts to make the principles acceptable. "The type of "proof" Mill is offering "consists only of some considerations which, Mill thought, might induce an honest and reasonable man to accept utilitarianism."(2)

2. To begin, I will be defining both act and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, you determine the morality of an act by measuring the pleasures and pains for a specific situation Angeles 326). Act utilitarians take into consideration only those affected in the specific situation. However, rule utilitarianism determines the morality of an act “according to the good or bad consequences that ensue from following a general moral rule of conduct…” (Angeles 326). Good examples of those general moral rules are phrases like, never steal or never tell a lie. In any situation, people can use either act or rule utilitarianism to determine the correct course of action.

The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.

Utilitarianism is the argument that all actions must be made for the greatest happiness for the greater number of people (Bentham, 42). However, utilitarianism cannot always be the basis of one’s decisions due to the fact that people need to look out for their own pain and pleasure before consulting others’ wellbeing. I will first explain the arguments of the utilitarianism ideal. Then I willl explain why this argument is unconvincing. Ultimately, I will then prove why people consider their own happiness before considering others. Thus showing the utilitarianism view is implausible due to the need for people to consider their own happiness when making decisions or else they themselves will be experiencing the most pain and unhappiness.

This theory advocates that the actions worth is determined by maximizing utility (pleasure or happiness).it looks at the consequence of an action as to whether the outcome is good to the majority of people affected by it. According to Bentham, utilitarianism is the greatest happiness or greatest felicity principle. There are many types of this theory which include act vs. rule, two level, motive, negative and average vs. total. (Clifford G., John C. 2009) In act utilitarianism, when people have to make choices, they should consider the consequences of each choice and then choose that which will generate much pleasure.