“The utilitarianism theory states that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility. Cyclists may choose to use the sidewalk and if a Cyclist chooses to use the sidewalk it is assumed that they understand that Pedestrians have priority use of the sidewalk in all scenarios and that any and all issues as result of the Cyclist using the sidewalk will result 100% fault of the Cyclist. I agree with that. Moreover, to Mill, actions which enhance happiness are morally right, on the other hand, actions that produce undesirable and unhappy outcomes are considered as morally wrong. Everywhere you turn the topic of abortion presents itself, on TV, in the newspapers, in books and magazines. Hence, utilitarianism. Consequences do matter, sometimes a lot, especially when making public policy. According to the greatest happiness principle, actions that promote overall happiness and pleasure are considered as right practices. There are many arguments for and against Utilitarianism and whether it provides an adequate basis for making moral decisions. The consequences of our actions are important. The men and women of America have fought in all four hemispheres, in developing countries, in developed countries, as well as on American soil. Arguments against Act Utilitarianism Essay. Utilitarianism just happens to most closely describe my personal philosophy. What do you think is wrong with it? The idea that something is inherently wrong is superstition, flat earth is only wrong because it is untrue, and murder is only wrong because of its effects. From a psychological standpoint, Mr. Rudolph had some very serious issues. And I think utiliarianism gets some of these wrong, therefore it is flawed. Sorry for maybe poisoning the well, or just misconstruing your line of argument, but I'm reasonably certain that that's where you're going, and I figured I could save you another comment. Even when some drugs do not present notable health dangers, governments ban them. Actions are viewed to be right if only they promote happiness” (Mill, 2010. page 17). First, I will explain what utilitarianism is, when and by whom it was originally created, and a brief explanation of what it stands for. Turning to adults, the so called-"cycling revolution" of recent years has been encouraged by politicians with an aim to reduce pollution, traffic congestion and create a healthier fitter population. They matter. Copyright © 2000-2020. From them, and probably from no other source, we learn that crack is immediately addictive in every case, we learn that it causes corruption, crazed violence, and almost always leads to death. “Utilitarianism is the view that the supreme principle of morality is to act so as to produce as much happiness as possible, each person counting equally” (Mill, 114). Arguably, the Cold War was the longest-tenured conflict (though mostly of ideology and fought by proxy) that the United States has been involved in. Mill himself fought for women's rights, against slavery, and for fair labor practices, which is consistent with his utilitarian convictions. The main principle of the utilitarian moral theory is not flawed. If rules are allowed to be violated then people no longer have the security they have from rules not being violated. This theory states that a morally correct being must in all cases do the thing that will give them the best result for their long term being. On the other hand, actions are considered to be. It may be that certain experiences are good or bad, or caused by good or bad phenomena. But I recognize we should act as if it does, because it might, and there's no objective reason not to if it doesn't. The principle of utility means the “principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which is appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question”, Thomson’s organ harvest debate is as follows - “David is a great transplant surgeon. The sentencing of the innocent man would produce the greatest immediate happiness, but would decrease the overall happiness as continued injustice would lead to corruption and eventual decay in the society. I do not know which moral theory to subscribe to, however. Do People Everywhere Feel Blue and Turn Green with Envy? Abortion is murder. Utilitarianism might be an instance of a more general theory of right consequentialism, which supports that right and wrong can only, be reviewed by the kindness of consequences. The way I would apply my form of Utilitarianism to case as you described as it relates to the article concerning the question of weighing the overall happiness of the innocent man versus everyone else. Overall, I believe that virtue ethics is the closets theory to correct because in virtue ethics, we are given a way to act and a role model to follow in order to make the right moral decision in all situations all of the, Arguments against Act Utilitarianism Essay, Opponents of Act Utilitarianism attempt to argue that Act Utilitarianism (henceforth AU) does not account for justice when applied to ethical dilemmas. A standard objection to utilitarianism is that it could require us to violate the standards of … The Structure of the Essay and Formal Requirements . I think the utilitarianism you consider flawed is a straw man. What is Utilitarianism? I do agree that there are problems with utilitarianism regarding vicarious punishments in justice, but that raises another question for me. If the earth truly was flat, then it would be most prudent to behave as though the earth was flat, simple as that. I will concentrate on utilitarianism that is widely used over the world. There is no such proclamation of any moral guideline. The reply to your point about overall happiness is that the judge just does it this one time, and so the overall happiness is increased because there is no continued injustice. My view is that they are not the only thing that matter, or the most fundamental thing, with respect to ethics. That last part is my personal issue of the case of the Judge and the innocent man. In the UK it is illegal to cycle on the pavement (sidewalk) . Is this correct? Act utilitarianism states that an act is morally permissible to do if and only if the good that the act produces will out weigh the good that any other available alternative act would produce. Defense of Utilitarianism against Some Common Objections. 2. Ethical Egoism stems from the idea that the self is the most important thing and that an ethical being has a moral obligation to do what is in the, Act utilitarianism is the philosophy that an act is permissible (the right thing to do) if and only if it produces as much or more good than any available alternative (class discussion). I think we know some acts are right, and others are wrong. arguments to support it belief in keeping abortion legal. 5. Psychologist, Sociologists and Anthropologist all have their place when it comes to analyzing criminals. While there are many drugs that are unhealthy when abused, the drug policies around the world, particularly the United States, are inconsistent and oppressive. 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. As it turns out, there is really weak evidence, mostly testimonials, for almost every moral system conceivable. I believe adoption is a better choice than, An Argument Against Abortion Utilitarian moral reasoning is prevalent in our political and moral dialogue. Can you determine morality without empiricism? If a moral position is as you say wrong, then it would be utilitarian to abandon it, therefore due to this self-correcting, utilitarianism can never be wrong. In the short term the Judge finding the innocent man guilty might give temporary happiness in the form of calming people, but the long term effect of the Judge doing that will impact happiness to come by all the same people who may not be thinking it at the time but would not want to live in a world where they could be in that innocent man’s shoes. Moreover, since this policy-making means that potentially reckless #'cyclgan cyclists are now effectively permitted to be on pavements, do you think this discretion not to apply the law is a case of utilitarianism that protects pavement cyclists but is unjust to pedestrians? I'm confused on how your argument is supposed to play out because it feels rushed in the context of your article. Our ability to accurately anticipate the course that results in the greatest overall happiness is limited and thus our execution of the theory is flawed. Nothing is inherently wrong, actions are right and wrong because of their good and bad consequences. Note that an experience doesn't have to cause the same response in different individuals, nor does an experience enjoyed by one have to be enjoyed equally by another, for this to be seen as evidence.