Natural Law Theory Vs Utilitarianism

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,

Utilitarianism is a philosophical theory. It concerns how to evaluate a large range of things that involve choices communities or groups face. These choices include policies, laws, human’s rights, moral codes,

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.

First, I would like to debate the utilitarian theory of justice. Certainly, the assumption would be that a practical approach to justice would produce a sensible result. However, I think that the term utilitarian is misleading because the major

Here I will layout each philosophers viewpoint and then highlight some of the differences between the two, as well as draw my own conclusion as to which method is more compatible with my own stance. Perhaps offer a personal view that may incorporate portions of both philosopher’s principles, or present my own perspective independent of either.

Utilitarianism is based off of the idea that actions are right if they are beneficial and support the majority. When a person is faced with a decision, he or she must think about the consequences in terms of pleasure versus pain. That person has a moral obligation to figure out which outcome is the better one. Majority of this paper will discuss act utilitarianism versus rule utilitarianism and different philosophical objections to each. Act utilitarianism is best described as actions that lead to the best consequence in that moment. For instance, a professor passes someone to get into medical school, even if he or she didn’t do all the work. The professor’s judgement is that the person would be a great doctor. Likewise, the student did

John Stuart Mill introduces his assessment of Utilitarianism by stating how a standardized system in which people’s actions may be judged to differentiate between right and wrong has been minimal in progress. He expresses the misconception with the way utility is understood by the general populous and other philosophers. The struggle to lay the foundations in what constitutes as right and wrong dates longer back than 2000 years ago.

Universalism demands every human being to have basic rights and there are three pillars of universalism. These human rights theories have originated from multiple different theorists. Natural law is one of the three pillars of universalism that will be discussed in the course of this essay. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher who expanded on the philosophy of natural law. He believed in the concept of religion and morality, and presumed that natural law was derived because of the commandments of God. Furthermore, the objective of this essay will be to explain natural law and why I disagree with the theory.

Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that holds the morally right course of action in any given situation is the course of which yields the greatest balance of benefits over harms. More specifically, utilitarianism’s core idea is that the effects of an action determine whether actions are morally right or wrong. Created with the philosophies of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), Utilitarianism began in England in the 19th Century. Bentham and Mill built their system of Utilitarianism on ancient hedonism (pursuing physical pleasure and avoiding physical pain). Although both of these philosophers agreed on the basic principals of Utilitarianism they disagreed on what exactly hedonism is.

In the book, “The Element of Moral Philosophy”, James Rachels explores the several criticisms of Utilitarianism. In this essay, I will touch on these criticisms, outlining the major implications they propose to Utilitarianism. I will also explain why many of the notions proposed against Utilitarianism are self-serving, and instead serve to improve the general good of a minority population, which contradicts the Utilitarian theory of equating moral aptitude to the general good of a majority population, and that in this respect a greater consequence is achieved. Lastly, I will demonstrate how many societal values have a Utilitarian basis, which proves that Utilitarianism can be salvaged in the face of most criticisms.

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 a limiting ethical theory that fails to grasp ethically reality. “The greatest good for the greatest number” is not ethically right in every situation. Although the majority would benefit, the minority will heavily suffer. Considering the overall consequences of our actions, the good may not always outweigh the bad, but this does mean that the good will be the ethically right thing to do. One may think they are “maximizing the overall good,” but in reality, harming many.

Utilitarianism is one of the most commonly used ethical theories from the time it was formulated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stewart Mill in the nineteenth century. In his work, Utilitarianism, Bentham “sought to dispel misconceptions that morality has nothing to do with usefulness or utility or that morality is opposed to pleasure” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 53). To simplify the utilitarian principle, which is one of utility, one can surmise that morality is equated with the greatest amount of utility or good for the greatest number of people (MacKinnon, 2012). Also, with its orientation to the “end or goal of actions” (MacKinnon, 2012, p. 54), Utilitarianism thus, espouses the consequentialist principle, e.g., the evaluation of any human act lies not so much in the nature of the act or the drive behind the act but rather the result of the act (MacKinnon, 2012).

The priority and absoluteness of rights is often gist for ethical debates. I consider these issues from the perspective of my ethical theory, which I call the "ethics of social consequences." The ethics of social consequences is one means of satisfying non-utilitarian consequentialism. It is characterized by the principles of positive social consequences, humanity, human dignity, legality, justice, responsibility, tolerance as well as moral obligation. I analyze Gewirth’s position regarding the absoluteness of rights as well as Nagel’s opinion that rights enjoy priority forever. However, I also concentrate on Williams’s critique of utilitarianism. I contend that the priority of the protection and respect of individual rights in ordinary