One huge factor in everyone’s life is money. We all need it to live, it might easy to make or hard. We still need it to earn it some way or somehow. The last few years the government has done a lot alone with the people to make sure making was more attainable, and that you made enough. Many individuals and families are struggling to make ends meet this causing them to be put in the poverty category. With an imposed increase you are not going to get everyone to agree. When you look at the increase you want their to be a change in the economy as a whole. The imposed increase would take it from 7.25 to 9 dollars. With that said some families would not be able to make it over the poverty threshold. This leading to issues is it really necessary to pass it, or should we fight for more.
A Utilitarian and a Deontologist would have different points of views on this because of the nature of the topic as a whole. A utilitarian would have views that everyone should be happy and more money could increase happiness. More money for the same amount of work does sound like a good deal. With that said if you increase the wage amount and companies do not have that in their budget, it will cause loss of jobs. A Utilitarian would defiantly have an issue with that. “Utilitarianism States that it wants the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” With job loses it would really not help the people out in a way that would be good. A utilitarian would want people to be happy with the change in the amount of wage. That means the companies, the workers and the economy as a whole. They would see it as a good change for people with some future negative feelings that could have an impact on the overall well being of people.
Now lets get to a Deontologist point of view. Their view would really be on whats better for the economy. They would impose the increase because more companies would be obligated to pay a higher amount of wage. Deontologists would say that...
The concept of sustainable development is an attempt to balance two
moral demands placed on the environment. The first demand is for development,
including economic development or growth. It arises mainly from the interests
of people who live in developing countries. Their present poverty gives them a
low quality of life and calls urgently for steps to improve their quality of
life. The second demand is for sustainability, for ensuring that we do not risk
the future in the sake of gains in the present. This arises from the interests
of people in the future who will need access to a reasonable quality of life,
non-renewable resources, unspoiled wilderness, and a healthy biosphere. These
two moral demands do conflict. In fact, economic growth is the prime source of
threats to the natural environment.
We have a rough sense of what a good quality of life for humans consists
of. Also, we can make some rough judgments about when a person's quality of
life has increased or decreased. Utilitarianism about future generations says
that people should weigh these increases impartially with respect to times. And,
in particular, should not prefer a smaller increase in the present well-being to
larger increases in the future. We should try to maximize the sum of increases
in well-being across times counting future lives equally against those in the...
...Utilitarianism as an ethical theory
Utilitarianism is the view that an act is right if it equals the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarians describe moral actions as actions that boost something good and lessen something that is bad. Virtue, knowledge, and goodwill are all good but they are only good if they give people a pleasurable existence. Pain is the only thing that is intrinsically bad. Utilitarians focus on the result of an act instead of the inherent nature of the act. An example would be an individual throwing their garbage into the ocean. Utilitarians would say throwing garbage into the ocean is not necessarily bad, but the effect it leaves will cause harm sooner or later and that is what is bad. I do not think that utilitarianism can be an ethical theory. It is simply too difficult to determine whether the utilitarian theory can be justified. The dilemma of trying to focus on a positive outcome or focusing on the actions that we take in order to accomplish the greatest good is too hard to measure.
Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialist theory. The consequentialist theory says moral rightness is determined solely by the consequence of your action. If an act maximizes the good then it is good. A utilitarian will support the decision of an action that will produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. However, this is...
“Actions are right in the proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” John Stuart Mill utilitarianism, 1863
Utilitarians founder Jeremy Bentham has a famous formulation that is know as the “greatest-happiness principle”. The definition of this is “the ethical principle that an action is right in so far as it promotes the greatest happiness of the greatest number of those affected”.
There are seven thoughts guiding them.
1. They want to think about the future
2. They want to leave the part of land they live on the same or even better than before
3. They want a better world where everyone is happy and think if themselves on how to make themselves happy and also how to make other people happy
4. They want right and wrong to be a bit easier. They do not want list to rule their lives. They say that if the Ten Commandments should only be obeyed if it increases their happiness and if they don’t they will not obey them
5. They do not want to talk to much about whether certain prefences are better than others eg. Opera vs. mud wrestling, or homosexuality vs. heterosexuality.
6. They will think of their own happiness, but other people’s happiness counts greatly. They would sacrifice their own happiness if they have to make someone else happy.
7. Do not limit their thinking to human ‘people’. Seek for a happier world...
... Utilitarianists are often persecuted for holding a morality in which the end always justifies the means, no matter how repulsive it may be to intuitional moral standards. Hare attempts to quiet controversy by combining act and rule utilitarianism in daily life in such a way that internal moral standards are satisfied and overall good is promoted. Kymlicka stays firm in his opposition to Hare’s theories and shuns the idea of consequentialism having intrinsic value greater than that of intuitive moral standards. Hare’s process of critical thinking combined with intuitionism leads to a flawless conclusion based on systematic procedure that will benefit the most people in the long term even against Kymlicka’s well thought out arguments.
Kymlicka thinks that utilitarianism bypasses immediate obligations that should be fulfilled. He believes that utilitarianists’ foresight actually hinders their ability to do what is “right” or “just” in the present. He also believes that utilitarianism gives too much weight to illegitimate preferences, meaning that utilitarianists can often choose to do the worse option in consideration in order to satiate a desire for immoral happiness. In the specific case that he puts forward, Kymlicka uses the simple example of an everyday action in which a loan is given to him and he faces the moral dilemma of whether or not he should repay it. He believes that the utilitarianist might keep the money or give it...
...UtilitarianismUtilitarianism is a moral theory generally considered to have been founded by Jeremy Bentham, a 19th century English philosopher and social reformer. It is centered on the concept of happiness, and those who seek it. The idea is that all people seek happiness, and that it is the ultimate goal of all human beings to be happy. Therefore, according to classical utilitarianism, when a person wishes to act in an ethically sound manner he or she should strive to bring about the greatest possible amount of happiness for the greatest possible amount of people. This is known as the greatest happiness attitude. Another, similar idea is that a person should always strive, if incapable of producing happiness, to reduce unhappiness. As the theory is wholly focused on the outcome of a person’s actions, it is classed as a “consequentialist” theory, i.e. a theory that concerns it with consequences and not actions in themselves.
Utilitarianism can be seen as a highly mathematical theorem, looking at the total units of happiness that a particular action gives rise to. For instance, I might want to go out and have drinks with some friends and my boyfriend or I could find something more family oriented and do something fun with my son and my boyfriend. Consider that my son is only little for a short time, would I rather have drinks and regret the hang over later or share a memory with my little boy. Taking my son out...
UtilitarianismUtilitarianism is an ethical theory that assesses an action as morally right and just if it produces the most amount of net happiness. There are two forms of utilitarianism: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism is the standard form, which considers all paths of the action that lead to immediate and long-term happiness, as well has the magnitude and how long the happiness will last. Furthermore, if all paths lead to the same amount of net happiness, each path would be just as morally right as the other. It also does not take into account the number of people it affects – it only considers the amount of happiness. To English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, happiness is pleasure and the absence of pain. He believed that all types of pleasure, if the in same amount, were also equal in quality. However, it is difficult to calculate an amount of happiness. Is the amount of happiness one receives from getting a promotion at McDonald’s the same as happiness one gets from graduating law school? So, John Stuart Mill, fellow philosopher and follower of Bentham’s utilitarian theory, believed that different pleasures have different values. To Mill, physical pleasures are valued less than pleasure that invigorate the mind. Thus, in the McDonald’s promotion and law school degree scenarios, Bentham would argue...
...believe in it, it needs to benefit them in some way.
This paper will discuss the properties of utilitarianism and the benefits it has on society. It will also compare utilitarianism to egoism, Kantian ethics, intuitionism and affirmative action. Utilitarianism's overall purpose is to serve the greater majority and this paper sets out to prove that. This paper will discuss many major points in utilitarianism such as: it links happiness and morality, it conforms to meet the needs of different situations, requires situation outcomes to be fair, and forces us to take in ideas or not only ours but the people around us.
This paper will also discuss some of the criticisms about this theory. These criticisms include: taking too much time to reach a decision, calculations to a decision can lead to unforeseeable consequences, population size is too big to put this theory into effect and the distribution of wealth, money or other goods may not be even.
To start we should get a feel for what exactly utilitarianism is. In a simple definition it is promoting the greater good for the majority. This definition does not give the theory as a whole, justice in defining it but as you read this paper you'll get a better understanding on just how good utilitarianism is.
Before we defend this theory against other theories out there we should get a better understanding of what the utilitarianism...
In A Critique of Utilitarianism, Bernard Williams argues that when following a Utilitarian approach for moral dilemmas, Utilitarianism might have us sacrifice or modify our moral integrity. Williams explains this argument with a hypothetical execution situation with protagonist Jim. Jim, who is a botanical expeditionary, accidentally wanders in the central square of a small South American town. There, he finds twenty Indians tied up in a row, with several armed soldiers standing in front of them. The captain in charge of the soldiers, Pedro, is ready to execute the Indians for protesting against the government. However, Jim is a foreigner and is honored by the captain. Because of this special occasion, Pedro gives Jim the option to shoot and kill one Indian. If Jim accepts, the other nineteen Indians can go free, if not, Pedro will shoot all twenty like intended. The Indians beg Jim to accept the offer and shoot one of them. Now, Jim is faced with a difficult decision whether to shoot one Indian or let Pedro shoot all of them. What should Jim do? It is not sure what the right course of action is, but four different theories could help him decide. These theories are: the Divine Command theory, Cultural Relativism, Kantianism, and Utilitarianism. In this paper, I will present these four theories and their suggestions for Jim’s right course of action, the faults in these theories, and how Utilitarianism is...