Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Act Utilitarianism
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Name and Code
Professor’s Name
Date
Act Utilitarianism
Explanation of Act Utilitarianism
Act Utilitarianism is a type of utilitarian theory of ethics that affirms that an individual’s act is only seen to be morally satisfactory if and only if it results in the best probable outcome for that specific situation (Dimmock & Fisher, 2017). Act Utilitarianism is most often linked to two British philosophers considered the greatest utilitarians, John Stuart Mill ad Jeremy Bentham. They established the utilitarian theory in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Significant implications arise from adopting a utilitarian outlook on how we should consider living an ethical life. Since utilitarianism gives equivalent weight to the well-being of all people, it proposes that we need to make helping other people a big part of our life as it values the well-being of all persons equally (Scarre, 2020). Act utilitarianism is an ethical principle that makes statements about identifying whether acts are good or bad, and it tries to justify these assertions by appealing to the concept of utility. Act utilitarianism precisely does this by considering repercussions and inquiring as to whether or not acts affect other people positively or negatively. Good acts are those that increase overall happiness and lessen suffering in the world, whereas negative deeds are those that have the opposite effect.
Act utilitarians believe we must carry out the activity that will produce the most excellent net utility when faced with a decision about what to do. In their opinion, the utility principle, which states that one should do whatever will create the most outstanding overall outcomes, should be implemented individually for each circumstance. In most cases, Act utilitarianism is often contrasted with ruling utilitarianism. While the act utilitarian is concerned solely with the effects of a particular action, the rule utilitarian is interested in how strictly adhering to rules of behavior affects outcomes. When it comes to Act utilitarianism, an action’s positivity or negativity is based on the action’s impact on the world. The idea of action in act utilitarianism is the one that positively affects the world by generating the most incredible amount of collective happiness for the people. Act utilitarianism, in contrast to rule utilitarianism, gives no weight to whether or not the actor behaved under any rules. Like other varieties of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism is a sort of consequentialism (Anjum & Mumford, 2017).
Pseudo-objections (Arguments) against AU and how Mill Replies
One of the pseudo-objections against AU is that happiness is unattainable, and thus it cannot be a rational aim for human life. Also, life goes on without happiness, and many good people have become virtuous by rejecting happiness. To begin with, Mill replies to this objection by arguing that it is an exaggeration to claim that humans cannot be happy. According to Mill, happiness is experiencing fleeting moments of ecstasy amid a life relatively free of hardships. Besides, he argues that this state of affairs is achievable and would be so for almost everyone if only the current educational and societal structures were altered. Mill believes most individuals can be happy, provided they get an education promoting the correct values. Next, Mill responds to the claim that most reasonable people in history are those who have chosen to forego happiness. Mill admits that this argument is valid, and he supports it by acknowledging that there are martyrs who renounce their happiness. However, Mill contends that martyrs must renounce their happiness for a higher cause (Mill, 2021). Besides, Mill acknowledges that selflessness, the desire to put the happiness of others before one’s own, is the greatest virtue. Mill’s replies are convincing since the worth of other people’s happiness is implied in the sacrifice so that others will not have to suffer as much as you have.
The second pseudo-objection against AU is that it leaves individuals “cold and unsympathizing” as it focuses exclusively on the outcomes of individual’s activities instead of on the morality or immorality of the people who do those acts. The first reply of Mill in response to the argument that utilitarianism is immoral because it does not take into account the character of the person when determining whether or not an act is right or wrong is that this is a critique of all morality; no system of ethics evaluates the character of persons who commit acts independently of the actions themselves. Mill says that if this objection means that many utilitarians fail to recognize other desired “beauties of character” but only consider utilitarianism as an exclusive measure of morality, then this is a reasonable indictment of many utilitarians (Mill, 2021). This reply is convincing because Mill argues that moralists of all stripes make a significant error when they focus only on developing their moral sentiments to neglect their artistic understandings or sympathies.
The third pseudo-objection against Au is that it glorifies base pleasures and aims to reduce the meaning of life to pleasure. To this argument, Mill argues that the pleasures available to humans are much greater than those available to animals and that once people become conscious of their greater capacities, they would never be satisfied to let them go uncultivated. While it is true that certain pleasures might be considered “basic,” that does not imply they are all equal; instead, some are more worthwhile in and of themselves. Consequently, utilitarianism assesses an action’s morality based on the number and quality of the pleasures it brings about. In his reply, Mill insists on how to know how to differentiate between lower and higher-quality pleasures. According to Mill, individuals always prefer one pleasure over another, even if it comes with discomfort. If individuals are unwilling to swap that pleasure for another, it means that pleasure is of better quality (Mill, 2021). This reply is also convincing because Mill argues it is an “unquestionable truth” that when all forms of pleasure are available equally, individuals will choose the ones that stimulate their “higher” faculties. No rational human being would ever want to assume the traits of a lower life form; similarly, no intelligent individual would ever deliberately choose to learn nothing.
Explain and critique several serious objections (arguments) leveled against AU.
One of the severe objections against AU is that it does not account for justice concerns. We can conceive scenarios in which a particular action plan might result in significant advantages for the community, even though they would be manifestly unjust. I agree with the objection since Act utilitarianism only focuses on ensuring that the action taken results in the greatest happiness for the people without considering whether the actions followed the rules. Some actions might result in greater happiness, but they could still be unjust to others. In addition, another serious objection leveled against AU is that people are required to make an excessive number of sacrifices, which makes it too demanding (De Lazari et al., 2013). The argument contends that utilitarianism mandates that we must always act in a manner that maximizes utility, which runs counter to the morality we intuitively understand and the morality we have deliberated about. I agree with this argument because when it comes to AU, we have to sacrifice our happiness to make other people happy.AU demands that we do what results in maximum utility, even if it means sacrificing our happiness.
References
Anjum, R. L., & Mumford, S. D. (2017). A philosophical argument against evidence‐based policy. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 23(5), 1045-1050.
De Lazari-Radek, K., & Singer, P. (2013). How much more demanding is utilitarianism than common sense morality? Revue internationale de philosophie, 266(4), 427-438.
Dimmock, M., & Fisher, A. (2017). Ethics for A-level. Open Book Publishers. DOI https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0125Mill, J. S. (2021). On Liberty: And Utilitarianism. SSL.
Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. Routledge.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount