A Consequentialist Action Is The Moral Worth Of An Act

The three principles of utilitarianism are “1. All ‘pleasures’ or benefits are not equal, 2. The system presumes that one can predict the consequences of one’s actions, and 3. There is little concern for individual rights” (Pollock,

The theory of utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy in which the happiness of the greatest number of people in society is considered the greatest good. The implementation of a no-fault compensation system would effectively provide a system of distributive justice and would be molded to be economically efficient and to incorporate feminist theories of equality.

Kant’s ethics is the most influential expression of an approach to ethics known as deontology, which is often contrasted with consequentialism. The distinctive feature of deontology is that it approves or disapproves of actions in and of themselves. For instance, according to Kant, lying is always wrong because we cannot will it as a universal maxim that lying is okay. The consequentialist view, by contrast, argues that moral value lies not in our actions but in their consequences. The utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill is one of the most influential forms of consequentialist ethics. Mill argues that we should always aim at ensuring the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people and that, for instance,

Classical utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory which holds that an action can only be considered as morally right where its consequences bring about the greatest amount of good to the greatest number (where 'good' is equal to pleasure minus pain). Likewise, an action is morally wrong where it fails to maximise good. Since it was first articulated in the late 19th Century by the likes of Jeremy Bentham and later John Stewart Mill, the classical approach to utilitarianism has since become the basis for many other consequentialist theories such as rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism upon which this essay will focus (Driver, 2009). Though birthed from the same

In this essay, I will argue that utilitarianism cannot be defended against the injustice objection. Utilitarians may be able to reply to the injustice objection in some cases by invoking one of two replies, the ‘Long term consequences’ reply, in which utilitarians will avoid unjust actions that increase short-term utility because in the long-term they will not lead to the greatest good. The other reply that may help utilitarianism avoid injustice in some cases is the ‘Secondary principles’ reply, where some rule-based principles such as not murdering (because it generally decreases happiness) may avoid injustice. However, I will focus on the ‘bite the bullet’ objection,

Utilitarianism is the concept that “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” In summation, the consequentialist theory states, in reference to Dr. Peetush, that morally “good” actions are those that promote “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” For instance, if a utilitarian were faced with the dilemma of having to kill an innocent for the welfare of 100 other innocents, he would justify this action as morally correct as it, according to Hedonic Calculus, quantitatively produces the most benefit for the largest amount of people. Although utilitarianism is seemingly attractive, it is difficult to digest, as there are several key fallacies that unhinge the theory. This paper will criticize utilitarianism via Louis P. Pojman’s “no-rest” and “justice” objections and the utilitarian’s respective rebuttals, followed by further defense against utilitarianism.

This essay will provide a theoretical understanding of the four ethical frameworks: Consequentialism, Non- Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics. When applied to a situation these frameworks help teachers to resolve and justify their decision making. The objective is to apply the four frameworks to the scenario Helping Molly, to establish the most ethical course of action. Finally, a recommended course of action will be justification. The overarching ethical issue present within the Helping Molly scenario is the community sponsorship and the alignment with school beliefs and initiatives.

Its general outline is the moral rightness of an action is determined by outcomes. For example, a student was struggling to help an old lady who has fallen on ground while other people do not even care about it and a student had to leave in a hurry. However, he helped her and a lady offered cordial thanks. As the example is illustrated, the act is good if its consequences are good, but if its consequences are bad then the act is wrong. Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) emphasizes that consequentialists determine what is right by weighing the ratio of good to bad that an action will produce. According to consequentialists, the decision of the Dean of Harvard Business School is simply explained as the result of decision which rejected all applicants who attempted to access the information derive a conclusion which Dean Clark observed their belief, principles and it shows making own decisions is always with responsibility for actions. In addition, utilitarianism will be applied on this case because this theory is in contrast with egoism which can be defined by Shaw et al(2013, p. 63) as egoism contends that an act is morally right if and only if it best promotes an agent’s long term interest.’. It means self-interesting is most important key point whether going into action or not. However, Utilitarianism is focused on more about ‘achieving the

James Rachels argues against utilitarianism on the bases of justice, rights, and backward looking reasons. In this paper I will address Rachels reasoning for rights to be a means of denying a consequentialist view, counter-examples to support his reasons, and why utilitarianism ultimately should be rejected. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which only the maximum amount of happiness for the most amount of people matters. It is a consequence based philosophy where an action is morally right if it benefits the majority of society, which creates many loop holes for injustice. Utilitarianism opens a door to exploit others in a morally inept fashion, allowing people to believe their actions are right when actually they are morally wrong.

John Stuart Mill’s defends utilitarianism, an ethical theory according to which, as he puts it, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (155 Ethics). In other words, actions are morally right if they make us happy and actions are morally wrong if they make us unhappy. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory in which an action is morally right if it increases the amount of pleasure and morally wrong if it decreases the amount of pleasure in the world.

Throughout Philosophy, morality is a central theme. Although each scholar views the definition of morality differently, the goal of people to be better and think for themselves is the main focus. Many philosophers have defined and categorized utilitarianism in different ways. In normative ethics, Jeremy Bentham believes an action is right if it promotes happiness and wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness but not just the happiness of a person who performed the action but also everyone that was affected by it (Duignan). Utilitarianism is the view that the morally right action is the action that has the most good (Driver). The foundation of morality in utilitarianism comes from utility or intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). In utilitarianism actions are evaluated by their utility instead of intrinsic properties of the actions (Skorupski 256). Utilitarianism says certain acts are right or wrong in themselves making us perform them or do not do them at all. On the contrary, concepts of the good go hand and hand with that of rights and obligation causing obligation to be determined by intrinsic value (Skorupski 256). John Stuart Mill theory of utilitarianism reveals what is utilitarianism, the morality, proof of validity, and the connection between justice and utility in the study of thinking.

The modern theory of utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism--"the view that normative properties depend only on consequences;" that is to say, in other words,

Utilitarianism is the ethical belief that the happiness of the greatest number of people is the greatest good. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers that were leading advocates for the utilitarianism that we study today. In order to understand the basis of utilitarianism, one must know what happiness is. John Stuart Mill defines happiness as the intended pleasure and absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure. Utilitarians feel the moral obligation to maximize pleasure for not only themselves, but for as many people as possible. All actions can be determined as right or wrong based on if they produce the maximum amount of happiness. The utilitarian belief that all actions can be determined as right or wrong based only on their repercussions connects utilitarianism to consequentialism. Consequentialism is the belief that an action can be determined morally right or wrong based on its consequences. Just like any other belief system, utilitarianism faces immense amount of praise and criticism.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory according to which an action is right if and only if it conforms to the principle of utility. An action conforms to the principle of utility if and only if its performance will be more productive of pleasure or happiness, or more preventive of pain and happiness, than any alternative. The rightness of an action entirely depends on the value of its consequences, this is why the theory is described as consequentialist. The “separateness of persons” is an objection against utilitarianism stating that the theory fails to recognize people as distinct individuals. It rejects the allowance of one person’s loss to be offset by another person’s gain, and it is only the net sum total that ultimately matters. Recognition of the “separateness of persons” is needed to put constraints on such trade offs. In this essay I will lay out the theory of utilitarianism and explain the “separateness of persons” objection presented by John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Ultimately I do think they present a successful argument, since utilitarianism is detached from individuals it can lead to grotesquely immoral consequences when put into practice.

Utilitarianism is based on maximizing human welfare, it is seen as the only way to determines the rightness of actions (Duignan, 2015). Furthermore, theory is in opposition to egoism, the view that a person should pursue his own self-interest, even at the expense of others, and to any ethical theory that regards some acts or types of acts (Duignan, 2015). Utilitarianism is said to be a strict relationship between the rightness of an action and the amount of pleasure it promotes and pain it prevents. However, in utilitarianism the only thing that gages morality of an action is whether it produces the greatest happiness ( McMillan, n.d.). Furthermore, utilitarian’s think that the moral rightness of an action is dependant of weather it promotes rightness. Rule utilitarian’s on the other hand, favor moral actions that are backed by moral rules. Utilitarianism is seen as morally demanding, as it requires increased moral choices. Rule utilitarianism down side is that it can be seen as rule