How to Write a Summary of an Article? In a brief sentence, utilitarianism means the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Basically what this means is, doing the right thing is based on how many people your action benefits rather than how much it benefits you. The whole theory is all about how much it benefits and how useful or profitable an action or an idea is.
That is, Bentham connects the welfare of the greatest number to a hedonistic view that values pleasure over pain. The action promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number in a particular situation would be morally best. First, implicit in his argument is the belief that the only way to measure the moral worth of an action is to evaluate its consequences: Will it produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number or not?
Whatever does produce the greatest happiness in a particular situation, Bentham claims, will be morally correct. Second, the contrast to Kant could not be more clear.
For Kant, the moral worth of an action lies strictly in the motive for taking the action, never its consequences. Only a good will, properly apprehending its duty through use of the categorical imperative and then acting to fulfill that duty, is capable of performing a morally good action.
Bentham himself was an ardent political reformer, arguing tenaciously for a number of, what were for the day, radical views, including equality for women, prison reform, decriminalization of homosexuality, and animal rights.
The younger Mill, aggressively educated by his father from ages three to fourteen, grew to be one of the 2 great thinkers of the nineteenth century.
Bentham had sought to distinguish pleasures and pains quantitatively e. Mill, by contrast, sought to include qualitative features, arguing, for instance, that the experience an intellectual or aesthetic pleasure like reading a good book might be more pleasurable than the physical pleasure of something like a good meal.
An individual acts, Bentham says, solely out of a desire for happiness i. This account could be termed descriptive in that it claims to explain why a person acts. This conflict leads to two problems. The first is obvious: The second is more theoretical: These sanctions serve for Mill as the bridge between the world of the individual and the larger social universal of which we are all a part.
External sanctions, for example, are social rules and laws that reward or punish persons for particular actions. Individuals view these sanctions in terms of their potential for pleasure or pain and adjust their future behavior accordingly.
There, he sounds a bit like Hume, arguing that obeying a moral law produces a feeling of pleasure and disobeying such a law produces a feeling of pain. For such persons, their own happiness may truly depend on the happiness of others, which seems 3 to show that the individual desire for happiness can be reconciled with the theoretical demand that individuals act for the welfare of all.
Why such connection might occur in some individuals rather than in others remains a question. At this point, contrasting Mill with Hume is instructive.
Mill argues that, as can be observed, individuals develop a sense of pleasure or pain associated with obeying or disobeying moral laws and that, at least for some, those pleasures and pains become the basis for a sympathetic connection with others.
Hume argues that such sympathetic connection is natural. By growing up in a human society, we intuitively learn to associate a feeling of moral pleasure with some acts and moral pain with others.
Another place where a general theory is lacking is in the second problem described above: For Bentham, what makes an action right depends upon whether it contributes to the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
That is, Bentham focuses on the happiness-producing potential of each individual action. We can call this act-utilitarianism.
Mill, to some extent, seems to subscribe to this view, but he also at points takes a position we might call rule-utilitarianism.This essay focuses on the first few decades of the original Vegan Society.
It was partly written to support the contention that veganism is a rejection of nonhuman exploitation that goes beyond dietary guidelines.
The Navy limits a petty officer's ____ to curb abuse or the perception of abuse. Utilitarianism: For and Against [J. J.
C. Smart, Bernard Williams] on ashio-midori.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Two essays on utilitarianism, written from opposite points of view, by J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams. In the first part of the book Professor Smart advocates a modern and sophisticated version of classical utilitarianism; he tries to formulate a consistent and.
According to Jeremy Bentham’s principle of utility, we should always do whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness. Is that right? Consider the following questions, and ask yourself whether they point to a defect in the doctrine of utilitarianism.
(You might want to read some disclaimers.). Utilitarianism, for all the unfortunate connotations of the word (which conjures up images of factories, high-rise buildings and all things ugly-but-functional), is an ethical system of great elegance and beauty.
|Utilitarianism and Greatest Happiness Essay Example | Graduateway||Le Guin uses the utopian society of Omelas to symbolically highlight the ugly and unsavory state of the human condition. This story delves into this idea of ethics and morality and concocts a set of solutions that one can consider when contemplating ethics and morality.|
|Post Archive||Summary[ edit ] Mill took many elements of his version of utilitarianism from Jeremy Benthamthe great nineteenth-century legal reformer, who along with William Paley were the two most influential English utilitarians prior to Mill.|
|Popular Topics||For its publication he brought old manuscripts into form and added some new material.|
|A History of Veganism||This sounds like an easy question.|
|Navy NKO: Introductory Professional Military Education Essay – Free Papers and Essays Examples||Back to Top Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is, then, the total utility of individuals which is important here, the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.|
That seems different, though, because it requires rejecting one ideology/ingroup, namely Catholicism. It makes sense that people identifying as Catholic would resent that the Protestants found a way to weaken Catholicism, and apparently people who “took the soup” were ostracized.