Category: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is one of the directions in ethics, the leading position of which is the usefulness of actions, which determines the moral value of a particular act or an entire behavior model. Besides, the benefit of measures refers to those actions that maximize happiness and pleasure for all affected parties. Although the theory is based on hedonism, there is no place for selfishness in utilitarianism since, according to this teaching, everyone deserves happiness. Thus, from the point of view of this theory, peoples actions can be considered moral if they bring others joy and happiness, and immoral otherwise. Considering the proposed situation in such a context, Nathans actions can be unambiguously called immoral for several reasons. First of all, the scientists actions are aimed only at the continuation of the research, and the man does not set as his goal to cause pleasure to any of the participants. Moreover, the actions carried out cause displeasure for all three present. Ava, although emotionless, is still forced to obey a self-destructive order that goes against the principles of self-preservation described in Asimovs Third Law.

Even disregarding the machines opinion, both people present do not experience positive emotions from what is happening. Nathan teases Ava against his will, as it also is part of his research. On the other hand, Caleb is a test subject who is forced to watch Avas disassembly, although he has feelings for her. Thus, the order given by Nathan brings pain to all three present, starting with the self-destructive Ava and ending with Caleb, who is forced to watch the suicide of his beloved. Such behavior may be considered immoral even outside the context of utilitarianism, but it also goes against this theory. At the same time, Nathan has a moral standing and the ability to stop this process since he observes and directs the entire process, being the head of the research. However, he voluntarily inflicts pain on others, as it is necessary to obtain data for his work. Consequently, his actions are entirely immoral from the point of view of considered ethical theory.

Utilitarianism is an ethical approach that requires human beings to engage in actions that promote happiness for a greater number of people. The approach requires human beings to avoid actions that are likely to cause harm to other people in their environment. An advantage that is linked to the ethical approach is that it seeks to promote happiness for a significant number of people in a community. A downside of utilitarianism is that it can end up causing harm to some people while benefiting others. An ethical approach that is superior to utilitarianism is the common-good approach, which requires community members to pursue common values and goals. The utilitarianism approach requires human beings to engage in actions that promote happiness for the greatest number of people in their community.

Utilitarianism has a positive relationship with welfare in that it encourages human beings to engage in actions that promote the welfare of all people in a society. Utilitarianism considers an action to be good if it enhances happiness or pleasure for a greater number of people within a particular environment. The ethical approach condemns any actions that are likely to cause harm or unhappiness to other people. In this case utilitarianism minimizes the likelihood of interfering with other peoples welfare.

One of the implications of utilitarianism is that human beings have to take a moral course of action in any situation they find themselves in. In this case, one has to assess the different courses of action that one can take in a particular situation and identify the one that maximizes benefits for all people. This is achieved by evaluating the benefits and harms that are likely to result from a particular course of action. Another implication of utilitarianism is that human beings have to avoid any actions that are likely to cause harm to others. In this case, one has to focus on engaging in actions that maximize good for all.

One of the benefits of utilitarianism is that it focuses on promoting happiness for society. The approach emphasizes the need for human beings to engage in actions that have a positive impact on them and those in their environment (Miller 1). In this case, one cannot engage in an action that is beneficial to them but causes harm to people around them. Following the utilitarian approach can help to minimize the injustices that human beings carry out against each other. Utilitarianism condemns people who harm others for personal benefit. Another advantage associated with utilitarianism is that the approach is easy to implement in day-to-day activities. The theory only requires human beings to focus on promoting happiness for all people through their actions. In this case, one can easily evaluate the benefits and downsides of their choices before implementing them. Engaging in actions that seek to promote happiness is necessary to minimize the likelihood of harm.

A downside that can be associated with utilitarianism is that it does not consider any other element apart from happiness. The approach relies on happiness to determine ethics and morality but does not focus on other things that affect human well-being. Utilitarianism has significant benefits but ignores some of the most important life experiences. Another downside linked to utilitarianism is that it leads to the development of an unrealistic perspective about society.

The approach emphasizes that an action should bring about happiness for a greater number of people in society. In this case, an action can cause happiness to a group of people but end up causing harm to others. The action can be considered to be good by individuals who enjoy the benefits, leaving others to suffer. Any action that a person engages in should not cause harm to other people in their environment. Another drawback associated with utilitarianism is that it relies on varying definitions of happiness. Something can bring about happiness for one person but end up causing harm to another one.

In my opinion, utilitarianism is not the most desirable approach for measuring and addressing societal well-being since it focuses on promoting happiness only. Societys well-being requires an interplay of different values and not happiness only. The alternative approach that I consider to be superior is the common-good approach. The approach emphasizes that the good of individuals in a society depends on the good of their community. In this case, community members have a focus on pursuing similar values and goals (Velasquez et al., 1). The approach requires society to ensure that social systems and institutions are beneficial to all people. This minimizes the likelihood of people experiencing harm from a particular action while other people enjoy the benefits.

In conclusion, the utilitarian approach requires human beings to engage in actions that promote happiness for the greatest number of people in their community. The approach seeks to maximize happiness through the actions of various people. However, the ethical approach can end up causing harm to a portion of people in a community. An approach that is superior to utilitarianism is the common-good approach since it requires members of a community to pursue similar values and goals. In this case, a specific action is likely to be beneficial to all members of a community.

Works Cited

Miller, Brandon. 13 advantages and disadvantages of utilitarianism theory. Green Garage, 2019. Web.

Velasquez, Manuel, et al. Thinking ethically. Issues in Ethics, (2015): 2-5. Web.

Act utilitarianism is a theory of ethics stating that any act of a person is morally right only if it promotes the best possible results and creates the greatest good for the majority. In such a way, the overall well being should serve as the major factor considered before performing a certain action. Following the act utilitarianism theory, the difference between good and bad acts comes from the results and consequences of a particular action. The achievement of outcomes beneficial for most people will be viewed as a good act, and, on the contrary, poor results will be associated with the wrong acts.

This framework was studied by John Mill and Jeremy Bentham, who offered their own visions, called rule and act utilitarianism correspondingly. The central difference between these two theories is that Bentham assumed that only the results of an act are significant and should be considered, while Mill stated that consequences resulting from following a certain rule of conduct should be taken into account when determining the nature of an action. These divergences promoted the emergence of two different visions of utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism is also often criticized by other thinkers and scientists. Thus, one of the central objections states that the paradigm is too demanding as people should be ready to make significant sacrifices to ensure a greater good is generated. Additionally, it might approve actions that were wrong but contributed to some positive results. In such a way, I think that utilitarianism is a good theory as promoting peoples well-being by specific acts is the desired purpose. However, it is too idealistic and detached from reality as people cannot measure all their actions by using this paradigm as it would make them experience severe moral suffering.

Utilitarianism is a direction in ethics that presents utility as the basis of morality. It is the principle of evaluating phenomena, processes, objects, and information only in terms of their usefulness and ability to serve as means to a goal (Scarre, 2020). The essence of utilitarianism consists of its concept of pleasure and suffering. The philosophy of utilitarianism considers everything that enhances pleasure and diminishes suffering to be beneficial (Scarre, 2020). This philosophy is founded on the result; if an action produces an increase in enjoyment and a decrease in pain, then it is assumed to be positive.

The Strengths and Weaknesses of Utilitarianism

It is worth considering the advantages; utilitarianism asserts that everyone desires to be happy, and it is difficult to dispute this. However, even more fundamentally, utilitarianism clarifies happiness in definitions that everyone can understand (Tannsjo, 2019). According to the theory, happiness is pleasure, misery is suffering, and it is better to have more enjoyment and less distress. Utilitarianism does not require its adherents to make strange, painful sacrifices (Tannsjo, 2019). The most powerful aspect of utilitarianism is its ability to translate intractable problems of moral reflection into solvable empirical problems of inquiry.

It is also appropriate to highlight the limitations of utilitarianism. At first, utilitarianism neglects the plurality of the human goal. Since one of these ends is the maximization of happiness or utility, utilitarianism places it above all others. It treats the common good as the aggregate benefit of society as a whole, without any interest in the individual or in the persons uniqueness (Tannsjo, 2019). Second, in general, the teleological ethics of utilitarianism prioritizes the goals over the means. For example, utilitarianism is based on the idea that societys aggregate aims should not be limited to individual human rights (Tannsjo, 2019). In fact, utilitarianism is in many senses opposed to liberalism.

Correlation with the Bible

Notably, there are some problems with utilitarianism that correspond with the concepts of the Bible. First, it focuses on results; an action cannot be good because that is the outcome. The Bible declares that man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks into the very heart. God is not so much interested in the results as in the intentions of human hearts (Riches, 2022, p. 23). God cannot be pleased with good actions with bad intentions; people cannot recognize the purpose of others. Individuals are not even capable of fully discerning their intentions. However, this is no excuse; persons will all have to stand before God and answer for their concessions.

Furthermore, utilitarianism emphasizes pleasure rather than what is a benefit. Pleasure is enjoyable for a person, but this concept can be intensely subjective. For example, pleasure for one person may be discomfort for another. Based on the Bible, God determines what is good and what is not, and God is not immutable, then Gods definition of goodness does not change; it is objective, not subjective (Riches, 2022). The concept of good depends on human desire or the passage of time. Similarly, by equating the concept of goodness with pleasure, people risk defining goodness as simply satisfying their basic, carnal desires. As people leading hedonistic lifestyles demonstrate, the more one indulges in pleasure, the less intense it becomes, and the more pleasure is required to achieve the same stimulation (Riches, 2022). This is the law of diminishing effect, which also applies in terms of satisfaction.

My Perspective on Utilitarianism

In my opinion, the philosophy of utilitarianism is oriented toward providing life with the least amount of suffering for most human beings. On the face of it, this appears like a fine goal. Still, its principal and fundamental disadvantage is the impossibility of combining the two elements of morality: justice and law. Hence, this means that sometimes actions may be morally justified based on utilitarianism. However, they may be illegal, and therefore their end result will be a violation of human rights, which is already unacceptable. Therefore, I consider that utilitarianism includes a lot of weaknesses.

References

Riches, J. (2022). The Bible: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Scarre, G. (2020). Utilitarianism. Routledge.

Tannsjo, T. (2019). Hedonistic utilitarianism. Edinburgh University Press.

Greatest Happiness

The greatest happiness principle is based on the belief that an action is right if it promotes happiness or, in other words, pleasure and absence of pain and it is wrong if it produces the reverse of happiness (Mill, 2015, p. 107).

Two Pleasures

It is possible to differentiate between pleasures. Thus, the pleasure has a higher value if as many people as possible can enjoy it (Mill, 2015). Thus, it is possible to focus on the quantity.

At the same time, if the pleasure is of higher quality, quality is more important than quantity. For instance, even if a limited number of people can benefit from an action that brings high-quality pleasure (even if it will not be appreciated by other people due to their lack of knowledge or experience), this action is more valuable than the one that brings pleasure of lower quality to more people.

False Assertions

According to Mill (2015), Utilitarianism is not a selfish doctrine as it may seem as people often act to promote happiness of others. Utilitarianism is not only about actions that make individuals happy, but it is about actions that increase happiness of many. Thus, people often feel better if they see that others are happy (giving presents, praising supporting others makes individuals happier due to compassion all humans have). Besides, happy people tend to act in a way that promotes happiness due to their emotional state.

Utilitarianism does not set too high standards as individuals are not supposed to act in a way to promote happiness of the entire humanity. Some actions can bring happiness to individuals but this will still means promotion of happiness in the world and, hence, the action will be regarded as right. Thus, through making oneself happy, an individual contributes to making other people happier as this individual will be more eager to promote happiness.

The doctrine is not godless as the Christian beliefs teach that God created people so that they could be happy, which is the major principle of Utilitarianism. In other words, Utilitarianism is based on one of the major Cristian values, promotion of happiness.

Finally, utilitarianism does not need time to evaluate the impact of this or that action as the previous experience of the humanity includes this evaluation. People have learnt about outcomes of many actions and now they know what is right and what is wrong.

Why is General Happiness Desirable?

General happiness is desirable, as each individual actually desires to be happy. According to Mill (2015), general happiness can be seen as the sum total of happiness of each individual. It is also important to distinguish between actions that are means to achieve happiness and those that are a part of happiness. Thus, listening to music is a desirable happiness, not just a mere means to achieve happiness.

Desire of Things Other Than Happiness

Critics of utilitarian principles stress that, according to this approach, happiness is the only thing that is desired and, hence, virtue cannot be desired. However, Mill (2015) argues that virtue can also be desired even if it does not bring immediate happiness to an individual. The philosopher stresses that people often feel happiness when they act in a way that brings happiness to others. Therefore, virtue can be desired, as it is often a way to become happier through bringing happiness to others.

Reference List

Mill, J. S. (2015). Utilitarianism. In O. Roca & M. Schuh (Eds.), An examined life: Critical thinking and ethics (pp. 107-117). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education.

About 13 million metrics of tons of plastic ends up in the ocean every year, causing sea animals to suffocate, starve, and drown. Plastic not only affect animals, it also has a negative effect on humans because it contaminates the sea food humans eat. (PEW) As a result, humans are being stressed everyday about the consequences of the use of plastics. Utilitarianism takes a role in the negative consequences of plastics since it is impacting a great number of the world’s population. The single use of plastic is a moral issue in today’s world that has been affecting the environment for a long time. In this paper, I will discuss how the single use of plastics affects sea animals and humans affecting the greater number of people by using the utilitarianism principle.

“Utilitarianism, at its most basic, states that something is moral, or good when it produces the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. It’s a theory of normative ethics that asks whether a specific action is good or bad, moral or immoral.” (What). The question is: Does the single use of plastics negatively affect the greater number of people to consider it morally wrong? Well, statistically National Geographic states that by 2050, every seabird on the planet will be eating plastic (We). Considering this and the negative effect that is has on animals it is morally wrong. Sea animals are being affecting by plastic every day, they are dying reducing the population of animals, causing human to worry about the future. For example, sea turtles are being suffocated by getting straws stocked in their nose enabling their breathing. Furthermore, not only the sea turtles are affected. Others sea animals including mammals, fish, sharks, and birds and dying because of single use of plastics. Over one million sea animals are killed each year because of plastics use. (information). While animals are dying, humans are being stressed causing an unhappy population because of the negative consequences that plastic use is going to bring for the future generations. Therefore, we ought to the people to reduce the single use of plastics to reduce stress for the greater good.

Not only are humans being affected emotionally but also physically. The single plastic use is also affecting human health. Once the plastics it’s in the ocean it takes thousands of years to decompose. As a result, fish and wildlife are becoming intoxicated. Consequently, the toxins from the plastics have entered the food chain, threatening human health (plastics). Humans are in danger as well because these toxins found in fish are very dangerous for humans. Some toxins found in plastic are linked with cancer, birth defects, immune system problems, and childhood developmental issues. (plastics). For instance, cancer is a major problem in today’s world that causes the population to decrease since there is not really a cure for it. Acknowledging that the single plastic use can end in ending a person’s life because of cancer, it generates fear in humans. According to the utilitarian principle, the single use of plastic is unethical since it is causing fear and unhappiness to the greater amount of people because of its negative consequences. For example, in a family with history of cancer or immune system problems the single use of plastic might be a threat. Considering that is almost impossible to vanish all plastic use, humans are being altered. As a result, we must serve as a community and start thinking of the future to have a happy environment. As it is said by experts, in some areas, the buildup of plastics is estimated to span 5 million square miles. To put it into perspective, that is the equivalent of the area of the U.S. plus India. (turtles). As citizens, actions need to be taken for the future and to keep a happy environment for the greater good.

Unfortunately, as the National Geographic says, “we are addicted to plastics” (we). Think about everything we use in our everyday life and almost half is made of plastic. For example, trash bags, grocery bags, beverages bottles, beauty products, straws, and infinite more. Only in plastics bags use, without counting all the other plastics materials, there are one hundred billion plastics bags used in one year in the United States. That is equivalent to one plastics bag per person in the United Sates per day. Since there is so many plastics used by humans, it is difficult to vanish all plastic use. Also, companies would not stop selling plastic, since it is the cheapest material in the market. Unfortunately, our world is run by money. The contradiction to utilitarianism comes from the greater amount of people being happy with cheap products made of plastics. If plastics products were to be vanished, glass or paperboards would be more expensive, and people will be upset. However, people are also upset because we do not live in a happy environment because of the negative consequences of the single use of plastic.

In my opinion, there are two sides of utilitarianism when it comes to the single use of plastics. The single use of plastic is considered morally wrong according to the utilitarian principle that says, “act to the greater amount of good for the greater amount of number” (what). The greater amount of number is in danger because of the effects of single use of plastic, causing an unhealthy environment. With the use of plastic being remove, the greater amount of people will be happy because it will minimize danger for the future. However, if plastic. is ever vanished, product prices would increase, causing unhappy citizens. In conclusion, utilitarianism in single plastic use contradicts. However, we should have a happy environment to have a happy life. We as good citizens can help the world be a better place by reducing the use of plastics to decrease the dangerous threats about the future.

Utilitarian reasoning is applied in various aspects of human life. A typical human life consists of 5 aspects: the work, health, learning, social, and spiritual levels of existence. It is often used both for moral reasoning and for any kind of rational decision-making. Additionally applied in several contexts, it can even be used for deliberations about the interests of various persons and groups.

Speaking of the work aspect of life, utilitarianism within the workplace focuses on ethics, democracy, rights, and responsibilities within the working environment. The thought of this idea is that if one conducts oneself properly at work, then he or she is going to be ready to achieve professional happiness. By making morally correct decisions, one’s happiness will increase. However, if one chooses to make morally wrong decisions, although it should be legal, one’s happiness will decrease. People are taught to concentrate on themselves before others, making it difficult to practice utilitarianism. One example of utilitarianism in the workplace is the practice of getting tiered pricing for a product or service to differing types of consumers. For instance, the airline industry offers first-class, business-class, and economy-class seats on many of their airplanes. Customers who fly in first or business class pay a way higher rate than those in economy seats, but they also get more amenities. However, the higher prices paid for first class or business seats help to ease the airline’s financial burden created by making room for economy class seats. In line with utilitarianism, the simplest action is the one that ends up in a greater amount of happiness for a greater number of individuals. In this case, it doesn’t maximize the happiness of a larger group of society who fly in economy class. The prominent limitation of utilitarianism is that it’s difficult to attain within the workplace.

The health aspect of life is one’s physical health. As applicable to health care ethics, utilitarian considerations became fairly standard procedure for giant percentages of health care professionals over the past several generations. It’s not in the least uncommon for decisions to be made, by health care professionals in any respect levels of health care, on the premise of what’s within the best interest of a selected collectivity of patients. Taking the present outbreak of Coronavirus (COVID-19) disease which is an infectious, potentially fatal disease, respective authorities in each country conceive to quarantine many people within the geographic region during which the outbreak occurred and mandate that healthcare professionals across the country diagnose patients with this same disease must not only take similar measures but also must report the names and other personal information of the affected patients to the respective authorities. These decisions are, themselves, decisions of ethical decision-making, and these decisions raise additional moral issues. At any rate, the elemental reason for taking such measures, under the desired circumstances, is for the protection of the health of the citizens in those areas where the outbreaks occurred, but, ultimately, such measures are taken for the protection of the health of citizens in respective countries generally, that is, to promote social utility. In this case, because utilitarian reasoning is being applied to a decision about which action is best for a personal person, it focuses only on how the varied choices will affect this single person.

The learning aspect of life is one’s personal development. It may be said as the mental aspect of which is one’s intellect, ability to think and reason. Developing the mental level of our being allows us to think, and remain open-minded, yet discern intelligently. For example, if an individual saves someone from drowning, it’s generally regarded as saving a drowning person because the right thing to do, and praise the person for such action. However, the person saved from drowning seems to be potentate like Adolf Hitler. If only Hitler had drowned, immeasurable people may have been saved from suffering and death. If utilitarianism evaluates the rescuer’s action as supported by its actual consequences, then the rescuer did the incorrect thing. If, however, utilitarians judge the rescuer’s action by its foreseeable consequences, then the rescuer did the proper thing because the rescuer couldn’t predict the negative effects of saving the person from drowning. It seems unfair to mention that the rescuer did the incorrect thing because the rescuer couldn’t foresee the longer-term bad effects of saving the drowning person.

The social aspect of life is one’s relationships with others. Developing the emotional level of our being allows us to feel the complete range of the human experience, with the five senses, and find fulfillment in our relationships with ourselves and every other. In this context, people often have to judge what’s best, not just for themselves or other individuals, but also what’s best for groups, like friends, families, religious groups, one’s country, etc. Bentham and other utilitarians’ method for determining the well-being of a bunch involved adding up the advantages and losses that members of the group would experience as a result of adopting one action or policy. The well-being of the group is solely the accumulation of the interests of all of its members. For example, if one is buying frozen dessert for a celebration 20 people will attend. The sole flavor options are chocolate and vanilla. As a utilitarian, one should choose the flavor that will end in the foremost pleasure for the group as a full. If thirteen of them like chocolate and seven of them like vanilla and if all of them get an identical amount of delight from the flavor they like, then one must choose chocolate. In this case, the person who’s buying the frozen dessert should choose chocolate whether or not he or she is one of the seven folks who enjoy vanilla over chocolate. The utilitarian method requires you to count everyone’s interests equally. Applying utilitarian theory in making decisions in social contexts might not weigh some people’s interests including one’s interests more heavily than others.

The spiritual aspect of life is one’s relationship with the greater power. Spirituality is the aspect of humanity that refers to the way individuals seek and express meaning and purpose and also the way they experience their connectedness to the instant, to self, to others, to nature, and the numerous or sacred. Developing our awareness of the spiritual level of our being allows us to experience a sense of belonging within the universe, a deeper meaning and purpose in our lives, and a broader perspective than we’ve got from our personality alone. The spiritual level provides a foundation for the events of the opposite levels. For example, if there’s a train coming towards a bunch of five people being tied to the railway track and someone is standing near the lever to make the train move onto a distinct path towards himself or herself. A utilitarian would pull the lever so that the train to head in the person’s direction. In this case, losing one life creates a greater amount of happiness than losing five lives. In keeping with utilitarianism, the simplest action is that the one that ends up in the best amount of happiness for the best number of individuals. 

The case considered below involves two principles; the right to know and the need to protect the public from accessing material considered harmful or offensive. This case involves the government of the People’s Republic China (PRC) internet censorship and the people’s right to be informed or share information through the internet.

The ethical issue under consideration revolves around whether the government of PRC should censure the internet despite the existence of media freedom which guarantees the right to access, share and broadcast information. Should censorship be based on the fact that the government is out to protect the public from accessing offensive or unwanted materials?

The claimants in this scenario consist of the government of the PRC, those protesting against the censorship and the general public who might not be aware of such attempts by the government.

The government stands to benefit from internet censorship since protests propagated through the internet will be curbed. The general public is a factor since internet censorship by the government may limit their access to information. The protesting groups are also a factor since any censorship laws will see them arrested and imprisoned for violating censorship laws.

Each of these parties would like to have the issue handled differently. The government would like to have internet censorship in place so as to curb protests propagated through the internet. The government is however stuck between the people’s right to be informed and the need to protect the public from unwanted or offensive material.

The protesting groups mainly journalist and internet users would like to see a censorship free internet where they will be able to inform the public and also put the government in check. The protesting groups on their part are stuck between fighting for a censorship free internet and the risk of being arrested and jailed. The general public although they might not be aware would like to have access to information.

This scenario presents at least three possible modes of action. The government may disregard the people’s protests and continue implementing the internet censorship laws. This can be justified by the fact that the government wants to regulate access to unwanted or offensive material. Second, the protestors may defy the censorship laws and continue pushing for a censorship free internet.

Justification for this could be that the freedom of speech and expression is a fundamentally universal human right that no citizen should be denied. Lastly, the government may decide to dialogue with the protesting groups over penitent issues under contention. This can be justified by the fact that both parties are not willing to cede their grounds over what they believe is right.

The last mode of action where the government dialogues with the protesting groups appears to be the most appropriate and effective thing to do. If the government of PRC continue implementing internet censorship laws, then the peoples’ right to be informed and share information freely might be infringed.

The decision which requires the government of PRC and the protesting groups to dialogue over contentious issues can be evaluated using John Stuart’s Utilitarianism theory. This theory considers whether the decision or judgment made provides for the greatest good for greatest number of people (Quinn).

Under this theory, the decision yields the greatest good for the greatest number of claimants. The step is good for the protesting groups and the general public since besides guaranteeing free access to information, also ensures that the government is put in check thus greater transparency and accountability in governance.

The decision will also be good for the government of the PRC since it will ensure that media freedom is upheld besides protecting the public from unwanted or offensive materials. Therefore, under this Utilitarianism theory, the decision requiring the government to consult with protesting groups is ethical.

Works Cited

Quinn, Michael J. Ethics for the Information Age 4th Edition. Boston: Pearson/Addison-Wesley, 2006.

A good action in the society is more purposeful when it produces the best results. The consequences of an action should be beneficial to a society. Utilitarianism prefers actions that have beneficial results ignoring their rules. A beneficial action should not destroy moral development in the society. This morality of an action is determined by the consequences of the action.

Societies require actions that will produce benefits and at the same time they should not be actions that go against the morals of the society. It is important for societies to define the nature of activities that are of benefit to the society. This is possible by developing rules that regulate actions that are developed by people in the society. These rules should increase benefits and control bad actions. Therefore, utilitarianism should lead to an increase in happiness of the society.

Utilitarianism can be described to belong to Chameleon philosophy. Like a chameleon, utilitarian action has to go for what is beneficial and protective. Changing with the environment and adopting the available actions to create happiness is valued in utilitarianism. Any approach that can increase happiness works for utilitarianism.

In utilitarianism, rules are necessary in the governing of the actions. One has to come up with the rules for the intended action. The rules are categorized to be either bad or good. In applying utilitarianism, a person has to choose the best rule whether it is good or bad. Utilitarianism only considers the results of an action. The best rule has to yield best results even when it is a rule that interferes with peoples’ rights.

Utilitarianism on calculating goods

Utilitarianism applies in the calculation of goods. This is because the concentration is normally on the consequences of the action. The good that comes with the action determines the utility of the action.

Utilitarianism on rights

Utilitarianism has an impact on rights. Rights refer to the benefits that one should enjoy without discrimination. When one denies another person his or her rights such cases normally leads to injustices. Utilitarianism only focuses on the happiness. When an action makes one person happy and denies another person his or her rights, it becomes a way of promoting injustices in the society. In utilitarianism, rights become less important.

The rules in utilitarian action are only designed to promote the benefits of that particular action. The rules do not consider the abuse of the rights by the action as long as the action remains beneficial to the society. The idea of utilitarianism rules ignoring rights normally puts the application of utilitarianism in people’s daily lives. Therefore, utilitarianism only values the consequences.

People’s highest moral actions are reflected in their deeds, and utilitarianism is one division of philosophy that tries to explain why people select certain actions over other and what should be done for the best outcome for all. Utilitarianism states that people must focus on the greater good for all people and maximize happiness in the process.

The most basic aspect is the utilization of the situation in such a way that everyone does not suffer and get the most out of actions of actors. The end results or consequences of actions is what matters, so people should make their selections very carefully. One of the most important criteria of utilitarianism is the balance between happiness and unhappiness.

If a certain action will bring less happiness, especially to the greater amount of people, then such action should be avoided at all costs. Utilitarianism bases itself on ethics and moral principles of highest order and even takes into consideration animals and the way people act towards them. There are many individuals who support this division of philosophy because it does not base itself on religion or any other power except a person, humanity and the greater good for people and other animals.

This is an important division because there are many instances where people are unnecessarily cruel to people and animals and so, utilitarians believe that it is wrong to bring pain to any living creature that can feel pain and suffer in the process. The highest ethical criteria define people’s actions and even though the situation matters and different conditions can be present, the end result stays the same and bases itself on most happiness.

In a moral dilemma of a trolley coming down the tracks without breaks, a person is presented with the choice to flip the switch and kill either five people or one. Most, would choose to flip the switch, so that one person is killed.

The reasoning is that the greater good would be to kill one person, as opposed to five because the happiness of five people is much greater than that of one. But at the same time, it is possible to speculate that one person might have a number of relatives or children that depend on them, so the greater happiness would be to kill five people because they are all single.

In case morality is taken into question, it can be asked whether one person has greater morality than that of other five. Maybe, it is the kindest person in the world and the good deeds that they have done and will do are going to be much greater than of the other five individuals. This situation presents a clear difficulty in making the right decision and the consequences are unknown, as there is no real way to predict and utilize knowledge, to figure out which choice is best.

This is one of the limitations of utilitarianism, as some situations are much harder to decide on. A far out possibility, would be for a person to rely on chance and start flipping the switch chaotically, so that the decision is made in a random order. But, this would not be according to the principle of the greater good, as the person does not make a conscious selection. Either way, it is better to strive towards more happiness than less.