Utilitarianism is the notion that the moral value of an action is determined by its helpfulness in producing pleasure or happiness as perceived among the public. It focuses on pleasure and pain and was developed by the philosopher Bentham Jeremy.
Utilitarianism is the thought that an ethical value of an act is determined exclusively by its efficacy in providing happiness or enjoyment as summed amid all conscious beings (Singer 90). It is, therefore, true to say that the ethical value of an act is indomitable by its result. Utilitarianism can be described as the supreme happiness principle. Utility, the best to be capitalized on, has been explained by several people as happiness or contentment, though the first choice utilitarian explains it as a fulfillment of preferences.
Thesis Statement: As much as Utilitarianism has its benefits, it also contains inherent risks.
In this theory of act utilitarianism, is well stated that, when one is faced with a decision to make, the first thing to consider is the outcome of the potential deeds and, from that decide to perform what is believed to generate the most happiness (Singer 89). However, the theory of rule utilitarianism commences by focusing on prospective rules of the deeds. From these two theories, it is wise to argue out that, if observances to the rule turn out more happiness or else, it is a rule that ethically must be subsequent at all times.
Nevertheless, rule utilitarianism is highly criticized for supporting common rules that somehow in some particular situations will clearly decline happiness if pursued. Not allowing to kill an individual may seem a good rule, but it can create self-defense in opposition to malicious attackers very difficult (Singer 45). Rule utilitarian attaches, on the other hand, that there exist common exclusion rules that consent to the breaching of other rules if only such rule breaching increases happiness, a good example being the one for self-defense.
However, considering rule utilitarianism there occur a difference between the strictness and absolutism of this meticulous division of utilitarianism (Singer 50). On the other hand, Weak rule utilitarianism posits that, though rules must be framed on earlier examples that are of benefit to the society, it is very possible, under particular situations, to act on what generates utmost happiness and breach that rule (Audi, 2007).
Rule utilitarianism must not be mistaken with heuristics through several acts utilitarian has the same opinion that it creates sense to come up with such rules of heuristics to be followed if they happen to be in a condition whose penalty is not easy, expensive, or time utilizing to calculate exactly. If the penalty can be well calculated fairly clearly and with not much doubt, however, the heuristic can be assumed (Hursthouse 67).
Most of these utilitarian theories deal with creating the highest amount of superior for the greatest group of persons. Negative utilitarianism demands us to support the least quantity of evil or harm or to avoid the highest amount of pain/suffering for the highest number of people (Hursthouse 78). Several philosophers argued that, this is the most efficient formula, since, they contend, the highest pains are more resulting than the highest goods. Karl popper referred also to an epistemological case where he suggested that it adds to transparency in the ground of ethics if we invent our strain negatively that is if we demand the abolition of pain rather than the backup of happiness.
Works Cited
Hursthouse, Ralph. On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Singer, Peter. The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1999.
The utilitarianism theory focuses on the moral aspect of various actions and decisions that people make and it attempts to explain whether the actions or decisions are right or wrong. The analysis of rightness and wrongness of a decision or action often depends on the values that each society holds dear (Callcut 24).
Therefore, the theory focuses on the justification of behavior and decisions as either moral or immoral. The concept of morality is entirely abstract. Perceptions of right and wrong depend both on individual and societal perspectives of morality often for the good of the individual analyzing the same.
In most cases, when people choose to undertake an analysis of the morality of actions and decisions, they focus on matters of public interest such as issues concerning politics, economic policies, and social constructs (Lukes 12).
Utilitarianism operates on several premises and one of them is the concept that an action or decision is right if it only affects the doer to the exclusion of any other person around the individual (Mill 41). For instance, if a person decides to set his/her house on fire at will, s/he should do so at will as long as the fire at the house does not spread to other peoples houses or cause damage to the neighboring properties.
However, some people argue that although a person has a right to set his or her own house on fire, the action affects others indirectly through ways such as spreading smoke and ash to the neighboring properties. This argument has led to the development of the second premise in the theory, which states that in order for actions and decisions to qualify as right and moral, they must appeal to the happiness of the greatest number.
This assertion means that the majority of people in any society or setting in which the actions or decisions take place must be in agreement with the same (Ferrell et al. 67). Using the example applied above, the burning of the house would only be right and moral if a majority of the people living in the area surrounding the house were okay with the action.
The reason for this rule is to set a standard for right and wrong behaviors and decisions and prevent clumsy decisions by individuals that are likely to affect a majority of other people simply due to individual preferences of morality, especially by representatives of the people in various governments (Alexander 48).
The third premise that the theory propagates is the perception that actions and decisions should increase happiness and reduce suffering for the greatest number of people. The theory thus places emphasis on the results rather than the procedure when analyzing the morality of actions and decisions (Parson 97).
For instance, if a man steals to feed his children, the morality of the action depends on whether it reduces suffering and increases happiness. However, in order to prevent outrageous actions and decisions, especially from government representatives, the second premise applies when vetting the moral validity of such actions and decisions (Sartorious 75).
Jeremy Bentham is one of the earliest proponents of this theory. According to him, absolute morality is impracticable as a vast majority of people hold conflicting views on what qualifies as right and what qualifies as wrong.
Therefore, utilitarianism provides a base regarding consideration and analysis of what qualifies as moral in terms of actions and decisions, especially with reference to government officials, civil servants, and other key figures in society (Bentham 12).
John Stuart mill, also a proponent of the theory, contributes to the discussion through his observation that the theory is result-oriented coupled with supporting Benthams opinion on the matter (Mill and Bentham 34).
In order to create a better understanding of the theory and its application, this paper explores five cases. It gives an overview of the main concerns in the cases and their moral implications according to the application of the utilitarian theory.
Case 1: Blood for sale
Case summary: Sol Levin was a successful stockbroker in Tampa. He observed that in the United States, the blood used for transfusions mostly comes from donation from well-wishers. However, since most people are not willing to donate, there was a blood deficit in the country.
He considered this scenario as an opportunity for a profitable business, and thus together with some colleagues, they formed Plasma International. The company mainly deals with the location, purchase, supply, and sale of blood to individuals and organizations that need it for transfusion.
During the initial stages of the companys operation, the company bought contaminated blood from alcoholics and drug addicts as only a few people in the country were willing to exchange their blood for money. However, the organization later found a village in Africa where people were more willing to sell their blood to the company at prices as low as fifteen cents a pint.
The company made deals with local chiefs for purchase of blood from people in the villages. The company resold the blood in the US at prices that were ten times higher than the purchase price. In the US, about forty percent of people donate blood to build up credit so that they do not buy blood when they need it later.
In comparison, the National Health Service in the Great Britain relies solely on blood donations. The justification for the British system is that blood is something that can dictate whether a person lives or dies. Denying that person blood, especially if voluntary donors offer it, because the person cannot afford the blood is wrong and thus immoral.
Discussion and application: The main issue in this case is whether sale and purchase of blood for profit is moral. Richard Tittmus presents his opinion in support of the British system by stating that selling blood as a commodity reduces the need for people to donate blood, thus resulting in less blood in most blood banks (Steiner 149).
Additionally, when people place a price on their blood, they place high values on it, thus leaving companies like Plasma International with little demand.
Using the utilitarian theory, the morality in selling blood depends on the societal values coupled with what the majority of the population considers as right. In the US, since the system of blood sale is acceptable in society, the act is moral.
However, people in the Great Britain might consider the same as immoral for in their eyes, people donate blood as an act of altruism to save another persons life. Selling blood like any other commodity degrades its intrinsic value.
Case 2: Wal-Mart
Case summary: Wal-Mart is currently the worlds largest retail franchise. It has over 4,750 stores and it attracts about 138 million shoppers every week. Consequently, the franchise has gained enormous influence in the market place, thus controlling up to thirty percent of the household market staples. Most companies selling consumer products such as foods consider the companys reach as an advantage to their businesses.
Consumers also benefit heavily from the low prices that the company sets for most products. However, some entities see the company as a hindrance to their progress and development. For instance, local businesses in most areas in the US consider the franchise a threat for its affordable prices attract customers previously loyal to such local businesses, thus running them out of business.
Closure of consumer-based businesses in such local communities often leads to loss of jobs, thus creating a monopoly while stifling the economy due to tax considerations that Wal-Mart stores get in most areas. Such occurrences destabilize entire communities.
Additionally, regardless of the profit that the company makes, it provides poor pay for employees without health insurance. The company thus has a high employee turnover of 44%. The company also uses its influence to dictate which products to stock on its shelves. This aspect has created a situation where some companies miss sales and profits while others get an unfair advantage.
Additionally, the company often uses its influence to control prices for goods from companies from which it stocks its products. The company has a tradition of advocating for low purchase prices from suppliers so that it can provide similarly lower prices when selling to its customers. This element is its trademark strategy and it has made the company and customers happy, even while leaving suppliers and local businesses in losses.
Discussion and application: The ethical issues that arise in this scenario is whether it is right for the company to expand without considering the local businesses in the areas of operation and whether the company has moral justification to alter market dynamics and force suppliers to lower prices in order to attract customers to its stores.
The application of the utilitarian theory to the case reveals that the determination of the morality of such actions depends on the group of people forming the majority at a given time. For instance, if customers form the majority, the actions are moral as they generate the greatest happiness and least suffering to consumers.
On the other hand, if the suppliers and local business owners form the majority, then Wal-Marts move would be wrong and immoral as it generates more pain than happiness to the greatest number of people.
In addition, application of the utilitarian theory reveals that the low wages to employees is wrong as the employees form a greater number as compared to the management of the company and the decision does not apply to the reduction of suffering concept for the majority, viz. the employees.
The franchise uses rules set by governments on businesses, and thus they apply equally to all business entities. Therefore, it is also possible that the company does not break any legal rules while conducting business, thus making its decisions rightful, hence moral.
Case 3: Webporn
Case Summary: Al Smetana, the CEO of Rayburn Unlimited Company, has built the company on foundations of honesty, integrity, and acknowledging the values that every individual at the company possesses. One day, he realized that an employee had found a way of accessing emails belonging to other people at the company. He immediately asked the employee to leave the company for violating the code of conduct.
As the employee was leaving, he made some remarks in anger regarding the vice president of the human resources division at the company, Mr. Craig Lindsey. The employee alleged that Lindsey used his computer to watch pornography.
At the time, Al Smetana was skeptical about the allegation, but later he decided to call Lindsey in his office and make inquiries. During the meeting, Lindsey accepted the allegations amid tears and stated that he was addicted to it and he was trying to stop. He asked the CEO for help, but Smetana said he needed time to think about the matter.
Discussion and application: The scenario creates a dilemma for Al Smetana where on one hand, he does not want to lose a friend, but on the other hand, he does not want to apply double standards and fail to abide by his own rules.
This scenario brings out Benthams point on morality as being an abstract concept that requires certain rules in order to apply to diverse situations without changing the core values. In this case, the rules are the presumptions that form the utilitarian theory. Application of the theory to the situation in this case will depend on the desired outcome as well as the company rules.
Case 4: Housing allowance
Summary: This case revolves around Wilson Mutambara, an employee of NewComm, a cellular telephone service based in the US with branches in different locations including Rambia, which is Mutambaras native home. Mutambara was brought up in shanties in his native country.
The area in which he grew was a slum. However, he overcame many challenges and worked hard to obtain a scholarship to study in the US after his high school education. He received MBA and got employment at the company. After three years in the company, his employer offered him the opportunity to return to his home of birth where he was working.
He excitedly accepted the opportunity and moved back to Rambia as his new workstation. The company set apart enough money for his utilities. In order to ensure that the employees utilized their allowance adequately, the company required its employees to produce receipts indicating an itemized list of expenditure preferences, with which Mutambara always complied.
Fifteen months into the job, a co-worker, Dale Garman, found out that Mutambara lived in a slum and alerted Mutambaras supervisor, Barbara Weston, on the issue. Weston confronted Mutambara on the matter. Her concern on the issue was that the housing conditions that he chose to live with were unbecoming of an employee of his caliber at the company.
However, Mutambara defended his actions stating that even though the information in the monthly receipts was false; his reasons for doing so were justifiable. One of his justifications for his actions was that every employee in the company received the same allowance and exempting him from the same payment plan would amount to discriminatory actions by the company.
He also argued that wherever he chose to live was his choice and that he did it to support his kin back home. He stated that it would be unreasonable for him to live in a mansion while his kin did not have enough food to eat. Lastly, he accused the company of being insensitive to the feeling of the people living in the slums by terming it as unseemly.
Discussion and application: In this case, several moral issues stand out, with the main ones being whether Westons opinion of the slum as being unseemly was right and whether Mutambara was right to falsify receipts for a good reason. The issue of whether Mutambaras argument that he was receiving payment like every other employee and had the right to use it as he wished was justified also stands out.
In applying the utilitarian theory to the first issue, the concept behind the opinion of the two parties depends mainly on the societies in which they grew up. Weston grew up in the US, which explains her sense of disgust towards slums in Rambia. On the other hand, Mutambara grew up in Rambia, hence his pride in the place.
According to the utilitarian theory, the majority for which the greatest happiness should be applied is the people of Rambia, as that is the location for the company at the time of the argument.
Mutambaras falsification of receipts was wrong according to the theory as it affected the entire company and its reputation negatively. However, Mutambaras claim for equality as an employee of the company was valid according the greatest happiness of the greatest number principle.
Case 5: Challenger
Case Summary: This case regards the 1986 detonation of the space shuttle, Challenger, whereby seven astronauts died. The event caused the shuttles grounding until safe flight was achievable. The explosion occurred due to low temperatures that caused the shuttles O-rings not to seal its joints properly, thus leading to an explosion.
Morton Thoikol Inc. was the responsible company for the manufacture of the booster rockets. During an investigation into the matter, it became apparent that one of Thoikols employees, Roger Boisjoly, had warned the company and NASA about the O-rings and predicted that the shuttles critical joints would be unable to seal on liftoff due to low temperatures.
On the evening of liftoff, Boisjoly and his fellow engineers advised their employers, but Thoikol and NASA declined to act. Boisjoly underwent dismissal from being a member of the commission investigating the issue, but the commission reinstated him after complaints that the action was paramount to punishment. However, he left the job a short while later on extended sick leave.
Discussion and application: The main moral issue in this case is whether Boisjoly had an obligation to the public to publicize the matter in order to prevent similar accidents in the future and the eventual launch of the shuttle later on. The utilitarian theory proposes, in this case, that the greatest number for which people should consider when making such decisions is the public.
Therefore, Boisjolys decision ought to be one that gives the greatest felicity for the greatest number. According to Benthams conceptualization of the theory, Boisjolys decision is a personal decision that mainly affects him in terms of retention of employment. Therefore, choosing what is best for himself would mean keeping the information secret in order to retain his job.
However, the impact of his decision would affect the public in terms of loss of more lives if the shuttle launched later without proper checks. Therefore, testifying on the matter is his obligation in his capacity as an engineer to protect public interests.
The decision would reduce pain by preventing future incidents and increase happiness by ensuring the procurement of justice for the dead astronauts. However, a dilemma occurs when considering the obligation that an employee has to his employer, in this case Thoikol and NASA. The best way for him to handle the issue would be to inform his employers of his concerns before deciding to publicize the matter.
Works Cited
Alexander, Samuel. Moral Order and Progress: An analysis of ethical conceptions, Boston: Adamant Media Corporation, 2005. Print.
Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, New York: Dover Publications, 2007. Print.
Callcut, Daniel. Mill, sentimentalism, and the problem of moral authority. Utilitas 21.1 (2009): 22-35. Print.
Ferrell, Odies, John Fraedrich, and Linda Ferrell. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases, New York: Cengage, 2013. Print.
Parson, Patricia. Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice, London: Kogan Page, 2004. Print.
Lukes, Steven. Moral Relativism, London: Picador Publisher, 2008. Print.
Mill, John, and Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism and other essays, London: Penguin Books, 2004. Print.
Sartorious, Rolf. Individual Conduct and Social Norms: A Utilitarian Account of Social Union and the Rule of Law, Charleston: BookSurge Publishing, 2009. Print.
Steiner, Philippe. Gifts of blood and organs: The market and fictitious commodities. French Journal of Sociology 44.3 (2003): 147-162. Print.
Utilitarianism is often criticized for its treatment of, or rather attitude towards individual rights. The utilitarian attitude towards rights is that the moral right is built on the basis of utilitarian aspects, especially on the principle that seeks to reduce pain and suffering of living organisms. Therefore, according to utilitarianism, all living things have right to live independently because it is part of their moral wish and interest.
Human beings, therefore, have the responsibility not only to respect and protect the ecological system. According to utilitarianism, mankind should not be seen as the only rational creature capable of self-intellection. This paper attempts to provide a defense view of the utilitarianism with reference to the book, Essential Readings in Moral Theory, edited by George Sher and other academic writings.
Defensive view
According utilitarianism, all living things have a basic value. I believe that human being possesses the same basic worth based on the right to exist and live. Moreover, the human being does not possess more ethical right than other beings on the basis of rationality.
Humans have natural worth that has to be treated with respect. In fact, all living beings experience subject of existence. Man is an alert being, thus possesses inherent values; he or she has the moral right to be respected and dignified. Regardless of rationality or irrationality, human beings have the right of choice (Bentham 548).
Despite the fact that some people have proposed the principle of lesser evil to be the only criteria for ethical impacts (utilitarianism) to fit their self-righteous attitude, it is inherent that moral right is built on the basis of utilitarian aspects, especially on the principle that seeks to reduce pain and suffering of living organisms (Gandjour 141).
Actually, the human self-attitude has ruined ecological values in earth. In fact, it is socialism and racism attitudes that have divided the human community (Brandt 559). Human beings have an ethical responsibility to maximize pleasure and to reduce suffering; such feelings in my opinion should also be extended to animals.
This suggests that all creatures should be treated just like mankind. Mankind is obsessed with domination attitude which is inhumane. Therefore, human rights should not be abused because mankind has the interest to exist (Brandt 561).
I support the utilitarian view that all living things have right to live independently because it is their moral wish and interest. This also calls for preservation of land because land is a community that supports living organisms.
Human being, therefore, has responsibility not only to respect and protect living organisms but also to conserve land. The view accomplishes its objective of confirming that human has moral and intrinsic rights (Berns, Bell, Capra, Prietula, Moore, Anderson, Gingers, and Atran758). In fact, mankind has strong moral rights due to the fact that he is autonomous.
In a comprehensive reflection, I may adopt the reflective approach in explaining the scope of utilitarianism and its relevance. This approach is based wrongness and rightness on intrinsic characteristics, with the consequences being a negligible influence on the same. As indicated in utilitarian view, I concur that the notion of right, in what is commonly referred to as ethics of common sense, is actively functioning on self-realization and naturalism.
From looking into the good will, proper motive, first and second categorical imperatives, and immorality as a component of irrationality in defining what is right, it is in order to state that the aspect of good, happiness, good character, practical wisdom, pleasure, and contemplative faculty are part of mankinds definition of the complete right (Bentham 549).
In analyzing right, I opine that the only intrinsically and unqualifiedly good is the good will. This has nothing to do with happiness. Further, wit, intelligence, and judgment are generally of good value to human life, but might turn out to be timid when employed for bad rationale. For instance, the negative results of bad use of self-control and moderation may negate the overall good. Thus, I may make a conclusion that right cannot be perverted since it is intrinsically and unqualifiedly good (Railton 570).
From this perspective, it is easy to notice that the aspect of good is but just a disposition since it functions around action oriented teleological system. I have denoted my premise from the fact that all rational things often aim for good through action oriented respect, mutual coexistence, and deeply entrenched social values (Railton 571). This is due to the fact that human beings possess more ethical right than other beings on the basis of their rationality in addition to an inherent worth.
The topic of right presents simple beliefs which fascinate, especially on the functioning border of human good and moral precepts of doing well. Among the listed examples under utilitarianism include experiencing pleasure, being honored, being healthy, and having beneficial friends. Reflectively, questioning these good actions is the first step towards understanding the significance of these actions on personal initiative in doing morally right things.
Despite the existence of a series of intermediate rightness forms, I am convinced that there exists the highest right. As a matter of fact, the highest right is achievable upon utilizing life virtues which must be put into action (Railton 571). Therefore, excellence in this case is the average between duo extremes; absence and excess.
Despite the existence of several means of achieving the highest right via virtue inclination, those opposed to the utilitarianism presents a loose definition of virtue since there is not universal formula that can remain the same for every individual in utility application (Brandt 561).
Therefore, for mankind to accomplish the balance between good and bad, he or she has the sole responsibility of acting as an exact opposite of a carefree person. These action-oriented motives must be aligned to the right individual, extent, time, and reason. The difficulty of achieving virtue, due to the present conditions which must be met, may only be defeated through the principle that seeks to reduce pain and suffering of living organisms. Reflectively, this argument concentrates on the individual and causal factors to being right.
Those opposing the principles of utilitarianism lack comprehensiveness and work on the assumption that the actions of an individual would influence the degree of rightness, that is, rightness cannot be quantified and highest goodness is not practical to achieve (Gandjour 147).
All living things have right to live independently because it is part of their moral wish and interest. This also calls for preservation of land because land supports living organisms. Human being, therefore, has a responsibility not only to respect and protect living organisms but also to conserve land.
Mankind should not be seen as the only rational creature capable of self-intellection (Berns et al. 756). As indicated in the above reflection, utilitarianism supports the right of non-humans in their interaction with humans. Utilitarianism supports non-humans as capable of self-intellection. For example, Chimpanzees, in their natural inclination, have communal, emotional, and intellectual apes features that are more related to human nature.
Actually, unique and comparable features between mankind and chimpanzee are related. The similarity is seen in tool-expertise, cultural knowledge, and inter-social life characterized by an organized system. Thus, the moral theory justifies the significance of non-humans on biodiversity balance.
Conclusion
Based on the principles of utilitarianism, I believe this argument is relevant in presenting the highest morals resting on right which allows mankind to undertake actions in the backdrop of climax morality. For instance, when the underlying command plans originate from the opinionated inclination of such an individual, the results would basically be aligned towards self-contempt. The imperatives that motivate mankind to undertake actions are inspired by the desire to complete such right actions.
My defense identified obligations which may be mistaken for rightness and self-preservation. Rather, what matters in the intention of the action in inter and intra personal relationships. Human beings need to appreciate significant contributions of existing Flora and Fauna in the environment as required by the moral theory.
Utilitarianism supports the actions of mankind as above the needs of the non-humans. However, the diversity of ecosystems is safeguarded when human beings conserve the environment and avoid exploitative attitude towards other creatures.Thus, the utilitarianism is in order to state that humans and nonhumans should be respected and protected to ensure the balance in biodiversity.
Works Cited
Bentham, Jeremy. Pleasure as the Good. Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory. Ed. George Sher. New York, NY: Routledge, 2012. 547-549. Print.
Berns, Gregory, Emily Bell, Monica Capra, Michael Prietula, Sara Moore, Brittany Anderson, Jeremy Gingers and Scott Atran. The price of your soul: Neural evidence for the non-utilitarian representation of sacred values. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 367.1 (2012): 754-762. Royalsocietypublishing.
Brandt, Richard. Goodness as the satisfaction of informed desire. Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory. Ed. George Sher. New York, NY: Routledge, 2012. 559-567. Print.
Gandjour, Afschin. Is it rational to pursue utilitarianism? Journal of the European Ethics Network. 14. 2 (2007): 139-158. Ethical-perspectives.
Railton, Peter. Facts and Values. Ethics: Essential Readings in Moral Theory. Ed. George Sher. New York, NY: Routledge, 2012. 570-574. Print.
John Stuart Mill summarized utilitarianism as the greatest good for the greatest number meaning anything that has the capability of benefiting many people in society is intrinsically good. The aim of any action, according to hedonists, is to attain the greatest amount of happiness and prevent any form of pain.
Fort Mill, pleasure is desirable, whereas misery is inherently bad. While other forms of pleasures exist, they only serve one purpose of promoting happiness and preventing pain (Haber 24). Robert Nozick developed a hypothesis that sought to challenge the reasoning of Mill, noting that human beings do not operate in the same way as machines. This paper presents the major arguments of utilitarianism that refute the claims that Nozick presents.
Nozick published an article in 1974 challenging readers to think critically about the postulations of Mill, arguing that a human being simulates certain forms of experiences that he or she considers pleasurable. Nozick was of the view that people are not in a position to differentiate between their experiences when in the experience machine and when outside. Nozick asked a fundamental question, would everybody plug into the machine. Unfortunately, some people would be reluctant to enter into this machine to reshape their experiences. He went on to give at least four reasons why some people will refuse to enter the machine.
Being different is a special human feature, and forcing people to be the same with others is compared to helping them to commit suicide (Haber 32). In the third reason, Nozick notes that human beings are likely to lose touch with reality by plugging into a simulated reality. He went on to claim that happiness and pleasure are simply some of the synthetic realities, which do not exist; hence, a majority of people would definitely refuse to adopt and apply them in their lives.
Finally, the experience machine is likely to prevent a person from making a difference in the real world, yet a number of individuals would want their impacts and contributions known in society. He refuted Mills postulations on utilitarianism since he suggested that other important issues in human life other than pleasure and happiness exist. His view was that desirability is not based on happiness.
Unfortunately, the reasons that Nozick gave are insufficient in supporting his hypothesis since he was never keen on conceptualizing the important aspects of utilitarianism. This means ideas on the experience machine are not sufficient to refute Mills postulations. Mill suggested that the quality of pleasure matters rather than its quantity, something that Nozick was never keen to evaluate before coming up with the assumptions on the experience machine.
Fort Mill, pleasures are grouped into two categories, including lower and higher pleasure, which means some are desirable as compared to others. He observed that it would be pleasurable for somebody like Socrates to be dissatisfied than a satisfied fool. Mill suggested that a competent judge has to be given the opportunity to distinguish between a higher pleasure and a lower one.
It is concluded that Nozick never conducted sufficient research to challenge the ideas of Mill on utilitarianism. His study neglected various concepts of utilitarianism, including the idea that pleasures are hierarchically ranked, with the lower pleasures occupying the lower cadre. Again, he failed to take into consideration an important aspect of competence, which is needed in giving a verdict on whether the pleasure is desirable or not.
Works Cited
Haber, Joram. Doing, and Being: Selected Readings in Moral Philosophy. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993. Print.
The idea of the purpose justifying the means is central to utilitarianism. The scholars Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill came up with the idea. In contrast to the latter, it considers actions results to be of greater worth. Utilitarianism is dependent on consequentiality since it asserts that the most moral thing to do is to use happiness for the benefit of society. Despite facing harsh criticism, the philosophical perspective on these circumstances is entirely dependent on its recipients. The practical method can also be selfish in that it is based on the philosophers preferred judgments.
Deontology, on the other hand, is a moral philosophy based on the Scriptures and may reference laws, moral principles, and intuition. According to deontology, the actions and the results must be morally correct. It emphasizes that the morality of the action has higher weight and that the consequences of a wrong action are not always the same as the deed itself. One specific instance is childbirth, where both the mother and the child are in danger. Although rescuing at least one of the two patients is preferable, saving both would be ideal, according to the experts. Due to its reliance on an approach to morality that is generally recognized, deontology offers a fair test of what is right or evil. Additionally, it forces the philosopher to consider opposing viewpoints without compromising the results.
The utilitarian tenet states that a course of action is appropriate if it maximizes the happiness of the most significant number of people. According to deontology, a decision should be made based on whether a set of norms deem the action to be right or wrong. The ideal alternative for choosing a stable course of action that helps everyone rather than most individuals, if the hypothetical decision truly succeeds, is to strike a compromise between these two ethical ideas.
Children grow up knowing that lying is wrong or evil in most societies. The implication is that they portray the truth as an objective moral norm that should never be compromised. However, when faced with a dilemma like lying to a kidnapper about the whereabouts of a child or pleading not guilty to a crime to avoid a twenty years jail term, then the absoluteness of truth is gauged. Are their circumstances when it is morally right to lie? Are there differences in vices such as lies, deception, and half-truths? These questions challenge the mind to conceive truth as relative and subject to reason. The other point of contention is whether virtues can be weighed or measured to determine their circumstantial relevance. In their respective essays, Mill and Gomez-Lobo present different perspectives on utilitarianism and natural law respectively. Although Mill and Gomez-Lobo provide solid arguments for their stance, sometimes presenting similar reasoning, the natural law upholds integrity without yielding to the selfish desire for pleasure at the expense of others.
Theories on the Basic Principles of Morality
The basic principle of utilitarianism is to choose whatever brings the ultimate pleasure. The principle of utility must be good at weighing conflicting utilities and determining the aspects in which one proponent the other (Mill 23). He further postulates that all past experiences provide sufficient resources for learning and understanding what will bring the ultimate joy. Noteworthy, the theory further asserts and cautions that the ultimate pursuit should be higher pleasures such as relationships, intellect, culture, and knowledge, and not the lower pleasures, which are sensual. There is no excuse for ignorance since man has gained all manner of prudence and morality as is fitting for decision-making. Mill concludes that the primary reason for morality is happiness, and they should use sense in determining the path that leads to happiness.
Conversely, Gomez-Lobo posits that there are eternal laws which are fundamental and source from all human rationality and natural law. The basic laws are truly self-evident and not just instrumental; they cannot be listed in a hierarchy or weighed. The basic goods, according to Gomez-Lobo, include life, family, work and play, friendship, the experience of beauty, integrity, and theoretical knowledge. Notably, Gomez-Lobos theory does not measure pleasure and minimizing pains as one of the goods that moral actions produce.
Perspectives on Moral Norms
The utilitarian perspective views lie as morally acceptable if they minimize harm or maximize benefits. Remarkably, he explains that it is expedient to monetarily lie to self or others to avoid getting an embarrassment (Mill 24). Despite this stance, Mill understands that lies kill trust and have the capacity to ruin the social wellness, virtue, civilization, and foundation of human happiness on a large scale. However, he gives a rationale that the harm to humans due to lies is justifiable in some circumstances, such withholding terrible news from a person who is dangerously ill or a malefactor (Mill 23). A person must weigh the implication of lying against telling the truth and decide on the advantageous side.
Comparatively, natural theories view lying as morally wrong because of its effect on values such as trust and friendship, which are part of the human good. The definition given for lying is an expression of words that contradicts the thoughts with an intent to deceive a person who has the right to know. Consequently, not lying to self or others is perceived as the basic moral norm as it preserves friendship (Gomez-Lobo 69). However, the philosopher cautions that much as people always want to hold on to their values, there are times when veracity can have negative implications. He calls for rationality in making distinctions between words such as deception and lies, equivocation and mental reservation, and half-truths, among others. Thus, the intrinsic reason for not saying the absolute truth is guided by consciousness for upholding the basic goods.
Opinion and Rationale for Best Theory
Noteworthy, the two theories emanate from different schools of thought. They bear some similarities in so far as the decision to lie is concerned. For instance, both theories postulate that there is a universal right, which can be determined by knowing the consequence of an Action. The utilitarian perspective assumes that people have experiences from time memorial that they can use to prudently decide what is right (Mill 23). Similarly, the natural law postulates that a fundamental moral order informs the conscious to understand what is right in a given circumstance. The implication is that if they found a Nazi looking for a Jew, they would withhold the full information.
The main problem with utilitarianism theory is that it has logical flaws when presented within a sorites paradox. For instance, since the ultimate goal is choosing the most pleasure, it could be acceptable to deceive and kill one organ donor and save a hundred patients. The morality of killing two or three people to save a hundred people will still be acceptable to the proponents of utilitarianism. The implication is that the theory fails to make a distinction between one dead donor and two or three. The only focus is on what alleviates the most pain and brings the most joy.
Conversely, when faced with a similar situation in which a doctor is asked to kill one person and save the rest, natural will have a different solution. Notably, good human tradition makes an unwillingness to easily give up important values (Gomez-Lobo 69). One of the fundamental virtue is the preservation of human life. The implication is that from this perspective, it will be impossible for the medic cannot lie and take an organ from one person to save the majority. The nature law seeks to create pleasure without compromising the fundamental virtues. Therefore, since there is no justification for deceiving to end the life of a person, the natural theory has no sorites paradox.
In conclusion, lying is a vice that goes against the moral norms of most societies. It breaks trust, misleads people, and strains relationships. However, the utilitarian theory posits that lies are morally permissible as long as they result in happiness and eradicate pain. It further claims that people know from experience what would cause more pleasure. Similarly, Gomez-Lobo theory of natural law has some tolerance to lies if it results in fundamental good. The theory uses some distinctions, such as lies and deceptions, to differentiate between what is acceptable and what continues upholding the values. However, the two schools of thought are distinct when the need to gain the most happiness contradicts the basic human good such as life. In other words, while those who hold to utilitarian perspective can kill a few people to save many such reasoning is unacceptable for natural law. Thus, the latter has a higher moral stance and is without logical flaws in reasoning and justification of dilemma.
Works Cited
Gomez-Lobo, Alfonso. Morality and the Human Goods. pp. 68-70
Mill, Struart, J. What Utilitarianism Is? pp. 22-23
Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy that involves making the right decisions that will please the greatest number of people in society. This paper will purpose to make a study of the features of utilitarianism in business ethics, with a close analysis of how utilitarianism benefits the customer.
Happiness and Unhappiness
First, in Utilitarianism, the decision-makers should not only consider the happiness that the decision brings but also the unhappiness or pain. The cause of action should lead to the lowest unhappiness level in the business environment possible. This means an action bound to bring both higher levels of happiness and unhappiness might be dropped in favor of that which brings considerably low levels of happiness but much lower levels of unhappiness. Decision-making based on utilitarianism should be based on the net difference between happiness and unhappiness upon which those with the lowest level of unhappiness are the right action.
Varying effect of actions
Secondly, utilitarianism as a theory notes that actions always affect people in the set environment differently (Shaw, 2008). It is thus possible that a single action within an environment will affect people differently and to a varying degree. Consequently, actions should only be based on those that provide the greatest net amount of happiness.
Position of a right and a wrong action
Thirdly, proponents of utilitarianism view all causes of actions as being morally right depending on the situation at hand and the time of execution. Actions are evaluated according to their consequences to the affected. But since it has been proved that actions elicit different reactions in different situations, then by principle virtually all decisions might be morally right depending on the circumstances and time (Hinman, 2003). For example, whereas failing to honor a promise like paying debt on an agreed date comes with unhappiness on the part of the recipient and some level of guilt, a decision to fail in some circumstances draws on balance more happiness. In this case, utilitarianism requires that one should not honor the date of the debt.
Compromise of utilitarianism and trust
Fourthly, the theory of utilitarianism acknowledges the importance of forming trust in the people one is working with. Although they value the net happiness which leaves few cases of unhappiness, this school of thought also takes into consideration of the long-term impression in the people. They caution that although lying sometimes bring more happiness than unhappiness, they are quick to note that whenever those who are deceived get to find out, they are not only happy but also the reputation between the two parties are damaged hence a strain in the normal relationship expected (Greenawalt, 1989). This poses a serious risk that managers wishing to apply this theory are advised to manage.
Uncertainties of actions
Fifth, it is not possible for people to predict future consequences of their action with certainties. Therefore, when one faces a decision of taking a gamble, utilitarianism notes that the only guiding principle is any action that brings maximum happiness. Accordingly, we have to act so as the expected or likely happiness is as great as possible. This is partly so because we lack precise measures for alternative actions for the decisions we make and thus we are left to make the best decisions that we expect maximum happiness (Fielder, 1992).
Compromise of other peoples interests and those of a decision-maker
Lastly, utilitarianism requires one to weigh his pleasure and pain when coming up with action. We have to strive to take into consideration our happiness and other people around us. Therefore, decision-makers should be calculative enough to ensure their prejudice does not overrule their decisions, especially when their interests are compromised.
References
Fielder, J. (1992). Organizational Loyalty. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 11: 80- 87.
Greenawalt, K. (1989). Conflicts of Law and Morality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hinman, L. M. (2003). Ethics: A Pluralistic Approach to Moral Theory: Chapter 5: The Ethics of Consequences: Utilitarianism. (3rd Edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Shaw, W. (2008). Business Ethics (7th ed). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory based on the idea that human actions should bring the best possible consequences. This theory is referred to by some as the consequentialist ethical theory. It is expressed in the form that asserts that people should always act so as to produce the greatest ratio of good to evil for everyone. The utilitarians believe that when choosing between two actions, the one that produces the greatest net happiness should be the one chosen. Where most of them disagree with one another is in the area of how this principle should be applied. There are also several stated weaknesses in this concept. It ignores actions that appear to be wrong in themselves; it espouses the concept that the end justifies the means; the principles may come into conflict with that of justice (utilitarianism seems to associate justice with efficiency rather than fair play); and it is extremely difficult to formulate and establish satisfactory rules of application.
For utilitarians, an act is right just insofar as it maximizes community happiness. The utilitarians, however, leave us without specification as to how the community is to be defined over time. The most reasonable interpretation of community is that it includes all relevant people (Kymlicka, 2002), If we are to include future generations, however, it would seem that the magnitude of their happiness will always overwhelm the magnitude of the happiness of people alive currently. The moral philosopher Richard T. De George, in what seems to be a philosophic reprise of the position taken by the economist Beckerman, asked what our moral obligations are to future generations. His answer is that we have none: presently existing human beings have no obligation to future-and-not-yet existing set or class of human beings. De Georges analysis gets around the issue, but it is difficult to imagine a utilitarian moral rule to support the view that the current generation is morally permitted to take away from the quality of life of future generations without even considering those generations. William T. Blackstone, who identifies himself as a rule utilitarian, has tried in recent times to turn utilitarianism to the task of the environment. He argues that there is a fundamental human right for a livable environment. The problem is that our current livable environment is bought at the expense of the environmental quality of future generations. If the current generation is required to maximize the potential quality of life of generations (including future ones), the current generation will be required (morally) to live at subsistence level (Kymlicka, 2002), The current generation plus one will also be so required. That generation plus one more will also be so required, and so on. By mathematical induction, all actual generations will be so required. Consequently, all people for all futures will be morally required to live at subsistence levela curious conclusion for utilitarianism. The attempt to achieve maximum happiness actually ends in producing minimum happiness. A theory like classical utilitarianism holds that the only property that matters is how far sentient beings enjoy happiness (Pettit 1991, p. 230).
The main objections to utilitarianism were developed by Williams (1973). Williams developed and described a doctrine of negative responsibility. According to this doctrine, a person can choose an action that does not bring harm or negative consequences but, at the same time, does not bring the greatest happiness. From the utilitarian perspective, it will be a wrong choice (Hare 1982). While his approach is promising, its fundamental direction has problems analogous to those faced by the utilitarians. If people are to place themselves behind the veil of ignorance, they shall be ignorant of what generation we shall belong to when the veil is lifted. That the doctrine of negative responsibility represents in this way the extreme of impartiality, and abstracts from the identity of the agent (Williams 1973). The purely logical and mathematical analysis behind the veil, however, will tell that the probability that we shall be part of future generations is higher than that we shall be part of near-term generations (Kymlicka, 2002),
The other problem with the utilitarian approach is that it recognizes me doing something and the others doing something. In this case, moral good and happiness will differ greatly. Consequently, people would want to make sure that the future environment is as beneficial as possible. We would not want to inherit the environment that we of this generation will leave to our successors (Kymlicka, 2002), We come, then, to as good an approximation as we cannot manipulate others. In order to carry that out, however, we shall have to be, in essence, manipulated by future generations (or the abstraction of them) (Hare 1982). That will always be true of any given generation, and thus each generation will be effectively manipulated by future generations. We shall all be used as means only ad infinitum. In contrast, Goodin (1991) underlines that no-one, morality would almost invariably lead us to prefer the former to the latter. Therein lies the great appeal of utilitarianism, as the theory of the good most standardly used to fill out the larger consequentialist framework (p. 242).
An example of truncated ethical discourse for failure to conceive of the environment as a biosphere is the economic analysis of utilitarianism. Once again, environmental harms are interpreted as failures of the market mechanism. The evils of pollution lie not with its destruction of the planetary life community but with its economic inefficiency. It is said that the market price for the commodities of a business that pollutes often does not reflect the true cost of production. The internal or private costs of the polluter do not include the external costs of the pollution itself, which is imposed on some immediate segment of society (Hare 1982). The resulting disparity between the lesser private costs of the polluter and the higher external costs to society indicates a failure of the market to price commodities accurately. This results in a misallocation of resources since more of the commodity is being produced than society would demand if it had an accurate measure of what it is paying to produce the commodity (Kymlicka, 2002), The resources being consumed by overproduction of the commodities are resources to be used to produce other commoditiesthus, the misallocation of resources. At the same time, resources are being wasted because the polluter, not taking into account the external or social cost of the pollution, has no incentive to decrease or eliminate them and thus continues the pollution. Those most immediately affected by the pollution must spend more to counter the effects of the pollution than other consumers, and thus they have less to spend on their share of market commodities (Hare 1982). Consequently, their share of goods is not proportioned to their desires and needs as compared to other buyers not so immediately burdened by the costs of the pollution. Pollution is wrong, finally, because it imposes price differentials In the utilitarian conception, then, harm to the environment is primarily a breakdown of the market mechanism, leading to the misallocation and waste of resources and inefficient distribution of commodities. The remedy for these wrongs is merely to ensure that the costs of pollution are properly absorbed by the producer (Smart, 1973). So long as the producer pays for the harms imposed on others by the polluting activity, the equity of this environmental ethic is satisfied. Since the environment is essentially a series of commodities, each with a quantifiable value, there is no notion of irreparable damage (Williams 1973). Moreover, the principles themselves do not contain any built-in limitations or lists of conditions circumscribing their applicability. Furthermore, when parties are disagreeing about behavior within the range of acceptability, they use words like rights, unfair, and justice, and they seem to communicate with each other. This may suggest that concepts and categories closely affiliated with or derived from basic moral principles are indeed operative in situations involving choices within the range of acceptability (Smart, 1973). Perhaps, then, there is no such range. But, then, there would be no issues of right versus right, no conflicts among different ways of life, and we would be left seeking some way of determining definitively why someone is right and the other party is wrong. Goodin (1991) states: Where, through some defect of cognition or will, the two standards diverge, welfare utilitarianism would suppress short-sighted preference satisfaction in favor of protecting peoples long-term welfare interests (p. 241).
Utilitarianism, as a science of society, should not be entirely preoccupied with the external culture, the purely rational mode of thought and behavior. What this meant is that the external environment, and by implication, the project to fashion the correct conditioning factors did not have the central importance. Utilitarianism can be seen as thinking that idealized earthly life, the cultivation of a high conception of what it may be made. A reasonable person would accept that the greatest happiness principle is the principle on which society, in general, should be managed, but many utilitarians do not expect each person to aim at anything other than his own happiness. The best way to maximize the general happiness of the community is for those responsible for the management of society to arrange matters, by employing the necessary. Williams underlines that utilitarianism has limitations and drawbacks which limit its scope and applicability.
Bibliography
Goodin, R. E. 1991, Utility and the good in Peter Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 241-248.
Hare, R.M. 1982, Ethical Theory and utilitarianism in Amartya Sen & Bernard Williams (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond, Cambridge.
Kymlicka, W. 2002, Contemporary Political Philosophy 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pettit, 1991, Ph. Consequentialism in Peter Singer (ed.), A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 230-240.
Smart, J.J.1973, An outline of a system of utilitarian ethics in J.J. Smart and Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against, Cambridge, pp. 3-73.
Williams, B. 1973, A critique of utilitarianism in J.J. Smart and Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against, Cambridge, pp. 77-150.
Utilitarianism is a theory focused on the consequences of the actions, while rights are claims justified by ethical principles. These two concepts can be juxtaposed, as utilitarianism denies the absolute nature of ethical rights and proclaims universal happiness as the only worthwhile goal. The idea of universal human rights is essential to modern democratic societies, while the concepts of utility attract a lot of criticism for ignoring humanitarian ethics. However, most prominent philosophers of 19th-century utilitarianism promoted liberal ideas that society accepted as universal human rights only several decades later. Therefore, it would be wrong to assume that these two theories contradict each other entirely despite the apparent differences.
For instance, utilitarianism promotes the ideas of equality that are central to the agenda of modern rights activists. Mill notes that humanity continuously advances towards universal equality (74-75). John Locke, who contributed significantly to the rights theory, argues the importance of equal rights in his Second Treatise of Civil Government as well. However, the argument for equality is based on different grounds in utilitarianism and rights theories. The former takes into account all the interested parties and defines equality as the best outcome. Locke believes the concept of equality follows the rules of nature. Ultimately, both philosophers come to a similar conclusion, even if they motivate it differently.
Positive rights are an essential part of the contemporary concept of rights. Based on the negative rights, positive rights provide a fail-safe mechanism to society and embody the idea of social justice. On the other hand, utilitarianism is often criticized for dismissing justice as irrelevant to the views of the movement. Hairy shows via the McCloskey case how the arguments of utility fail to respond to the demands of justice adequately (78-80). Executing an innocent person to prevent further violence is not only a violation of a fundamental human right to live but also a gamble that does not necessarily benefit the majority in the end. For instance, if the information about the murder of the innocent is exposed, it might result in grave consequences for the community. This case reveals another problem of utilitarianism inaccuracy of the assumptions based on the concept of greater good . The ability to define the exact outcomes of the decisions made is crucial to the utility concept. However, as utilitarianism claims that the interests of all parties have to be taken into account, it makes such equations in the age of globalization extremely unreliable.
COVID-19 epidemic is a perfect example of the rights-utility conflict in the modern world. As medical care systems around the world have collapsed following the first few months of the pandemic, some governments are forced to adopt a utilitarian approach. In a situation where medical facilities are insufficiently equipped, only the patients with a higher chance of survival are accepted. This policy directly contradicts the universal positive right to medical treatment, but easily fits into the concept of Unitarianism.
As human rights movements have a significant influence on the contemporary political agenda, Unitarianism has minimal potential to become a new official ideology in the Western countries for the next few decades. The failure of Unitarianism to adapt to the demands of modern society makes it an unattractive alternative to the rights theory. As previously noted, these concepts have certain similarities, but major differences in argumentation set them apart.
Works Cited
Hayry, Matti. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics. Routledge, 2013.
Unlike the non-human animals, we live in a society that does not believe the laws of nature to be the sole possessor of ultimate truth. Long years of human development have shaped another law that may be violated by some individuals but has a significant influence on our decision-making process. What is more, it handles our relations. The moral law is considered to be a set of ideas distinguishing good and evil. A noteworthy detail is that people have different opinions on what is appropriate and what is not and this is why they use different approaches to solve moral problems. Utilitarianism belongs to the number of the most popular ethical doctrines in philosophy. The main principle of utilitarianism is that the moral value of any behavior or action is defined by its utility or profitableness (Barrow 17). According to that, means that are used to reach some goal cannot be regarded as inappropriate if the ultimate goal is aimed at doing something good. To define if the action is appropriate or vice versa, one should take into consideration its consequences (Landa 150). As for the possible consequences, people who support the concept of utilitarianism claim that actions can bring either pleasure or pain, and the latter are always regarded as ones breaking the moral law of humanity (Mulgan 9). Utilitarianism can not be viewed as a separate theory as it presents the cluster of theories that are interconnected and this is why this concept may sometimes be controversial (Treviqo and Tilly 10). There are many moral problems that our society has to solve and the problem of our attitude to animals belongs to the number of the most urgent ones. Animal welfare is a concept that states the importance of a careful attitude to the wild world (Grandin 9). The concept of animal welfare is connected to utilitarianism as the latter operates the notions of pleasure and pain of any animate beings. Careful attitude to animals is extremely important because the profit that people get exploiting the animals for their purposes is inseparable from the pain that animals experience (Patterson-Kane 97). Utilitarianism puts stress on an ultimate task of action but if we do significant harm to animate beings or even kill them, it cannot be regarded as a good way to fulfill the task because animals feel pain as we do. Violent actions that people do to animals are likely to be profitable only for the people and this is why we have to change the way we treat animals to exclude or minimize their pain.
As for my opinion, I strongly support the idea of animal protection as I believe careless attitude to animals to be inconsistent with the image of a human as a conscious creature. I am deeply convinced that consciousness means thinking about others and the commonwealth. There is no doubt that commonwealth is impossible when somebody has to suffer in the name of somebody elses pleasure. If we consider ourselves to have the edge over the animals, we should act correspondingly to that claim and be the creatures that deserve trust and are worthy of respect.
To conclude, the issue of animal welfare remains one of the most important problems as its present state is quite flailing. The concept of utilitarianism also supports the unacceptability of consumptive use of animals as it cannot be called appropriate from a moral perspective.
Works Cited
Barrow, Robin. Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement, New York, NY: Routledge, 2015. Print.
Landa, Ramiro Ortega. Utilitarianism, Ethics and Public Policy. Revista Latinoamericana de Desarrollo Económico 2.2 (2015): 149-152. Print.
Mulgan, Tim. Understanding Utilitarianism, New York, NY: Routledge, 2014. Print.
Patterson-Kane, Emily. Trying to Make Regulation Something More Than Just a Burden: A Review of Excellence Beyond Compliance: Enhancing Animal Welfare Through the Constructive Use of the Animal Welfare Act by James F. Gesualdi. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 19.1 (2016): 97-98. Print.
Treviqo, Javier, and C. Tilly. George C. Homans: History, Theory, and Method, New York, NY: Routledge, 2016. Print.