| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "UTILITARIANISM MORALITY": |
|
|
"Utilitarianism and Morality", 2002.
This essay discusses how, in "Utilitarianism", John Stuart Mill states that, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility".
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates Mill's statement: "To do as one would be done by, and to love one's neighbor as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." In this way, Mill succeeds in characterizing the spirit of utilitarianism as a moral theory. The author thinks that this is because it becomes in people's self-interest to be good to others.
| |
|
Moral Principles Under Utilitarianism, 2005.
A discussion on whether there are good reasons for adopting the right moral principles or whether people are simply bribed or coerced into accepting them.
1,961 words (approx. 7.8 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
After taking the necessary step of considering and modifying the phrasing of the statement, and defining the "right" moral principles under a utilitarian system, the paper begins by discussing Mill's "sanctions" of his morality. The concept of "conscience" and the essential social nature of mankind is also discussed and found to be useful in the debate.
From the Paper
"Furthermore, the "bribes and threats" element of the statement is similar to the legal and political systems of any civilised country. For example, the "bribes" could be the incentive of a health system or an armed defence force in return for a member of society paying their taxes, while the threats are the punishments legislated for breaking the law, which in this case is effectively refusal to adopt the right moral principles as defined by society. It cannot be denied that both the bribes and threats are necessary for the smooth and orderly running of society, to make sure those who do not adopt the right morals do not profit over those who do. While they may not make them truly adopt these moral principles, these threats should at least make them superficially conform to them."
| |
|
Rule-Utilitarianism and Act-Utilitarianism, 2005.
A look at the controversial debate between the two major methods of implementing practical utilitarianism.
2,004 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper first defines act- and rule-utilitarianism before discussing their relative merits. It moves through the debate using a series of famous examples and counter-examples designed to highlight the faults of each method. For example, the accusation of "rule-worshipping" is contrasted with the idea that act-utilitarianism allows people to break promises, or is too demanding. The paper ultimately finds that rule-utilitarianism is all too likely to slip into act-utilitarianism if it is to avoid potentially dangerous rule-worship.
From the Paper
"The first principle of utilitarianism is acceptable enough, partly because Mill specifically spends much time discussing its proof in Utilitarianism, and partly because happiness as an ultimate end in life seems to the vast majority of people to be reasonable enough. However, there is great controversy between the opposing schools of utilitarianism about how exactly the individual utilitarian should make their moral decisions. The choice is between the principles of act-utilitarianism, which dictates that the rightness or wrongness of a single action is to be judged by the action's consequences, and those of rule-utilitarianism, which dictates that the action should be judged by a set of established rules, which are designed to produce the best consequences. It should also be noted that writers in both sides have cited passages in Mill's text which appear to support their point of view."
| |
|
A Utilitarian Essay, 2006.
This paper defines the utilitarian philosophy while discussing its moral relevance in today's society in areas such as religion and warfare.
1,703 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The writer of this paper defines utilitarianism as a philosophical theory, whereby actions are judged right or wrong depending upon the consequences that result from the action. This evaluation of consequences then serves as a basis for laws and subsequent action by others. Utilitarianism negates any type of traditional or religious authority and bases the ultimate decision of morality upon human welfare. This paper details how a utilitarian philosophy can be applied to various areas in our lives, such as warfare, which has long been a moral issue. From the perspective of a defending country, it can be reasoned that to go to war to defend the motherland, procure items of need, or secure foreign interests is a moral act. The writer contends that in order for true world peace to be attained, from a utilitarian view, warfare must be brought to an end in order for the vast majority to attain happiness. This paper also discusses opposing views to this particular philosophy.
From the Paper
"Not having found the practical answers for what is moral from the deonotological approach to morality, how is one to determine the moral basis for a strategically coordinated global philosophical revolution which would end human warfare? Turning the attention to the theologically based moralities of Christians, Jews, and Moslems, yields no help. The scriptures of these traditional world religions are full of justified massacres. The Christian faith taken to the more extreme predicts warfare to the bitter end of human history. Among all three of these religions we find both moral justification for war and condemnation for the immorality of war. Perhaps Kant's categorical imperative approach to morality can yield some insight."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 2004.
An overview of act and rule utilitarianism and a discussion on which version is more plausible according to John Mill.
1,457 words (approx. 5.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 48.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how act utilitarianism is a direct moral theory and how the morally right action is the one that maximises happiness. In comparison, it looks at how rule utilitarianism, while concerned with actions, is a more indirect theory in which the morally right action is not the one that necessarily maximises happiness in every situation. It considers whether John Mill is an act or rule utilitarian, using Mill's idea of customary morality and evaluates which version of utilitarianism is more plausible.
From the Paper
"Rule utilitarianism is not then very plausible as a form of utilitarianism, but it does at least offer answers to some of the problems with act utilitarianism. If one is to maximise happiness then in theory one has to calculate the welfare values associated with every potential action. This is obviously not realistic as one would have to spend a good deal of one's live calculating such values, which itself would surely not lead to happiness being maximised as these calculations themselves can not be described as particularly pleasurable. Indeed would someone really stand on the shore contemplating the consequences of saving a drowning man for more than a split second before acting?"
| |
|
Hedonistic Act-Utilitarianism, 2007.
An examination of the various types of utilitarianism, particularly hedonistic act-utilitarianism, and their applications to life.
3,128 words (approx. 12.5 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 91.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes and discusses the concept of hedonistic act-utilitarianism. It discusses the importance of morality in society and how the theory of morality changes depending on how one defines one's social obligations. It then describes the utilitarian theory and how a Utilitarian may view an act. The paper goes on to discuss rule utilitarianism and the various types of utilitarianism, such as hedonism and egoism. The paper concludes by exploring the concept of hedonistic act-utilitarianism and its applications.
Table of Contents:
Heroism and the Call to Duty
Utilitarianism and Justice
Hedonism and Egoism
What, Other Than Pleasure, Is Valuable?
Issues of Utilitarian Impartiality
From the Paper
"According to Hurka and Copp (pp. 357-380) utilitarianisms affects the groups, more so than the individual. Therefore, the same dilution effect can be seen in the division of the greater social good. When one considers the group, everyone receives a smaller piece of the pie. The plausibility of hedonism in a utilitarian act depends on one's definition of pleasure and how the group dynamics work as far as spreading the rewards and punishments to their members. It is plausible to have hedonism and utilitarianism together. However, one must be careful to qualify their definitions. One can speak of the hedonistic acts of an individual or the hedonistic acts of a group. It is plausible for a group to have hedonistic act-utilitarian. However, this is more difficult for the individual because of the differences in perception. The answer to the question lies in which microscope one uses to examine the issue."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 2002.
An examination of John Stuart Mill?s philosophy of utilitarianism.
768 words (approx. 3.1 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Nineteenth century British philosopher John Stuart Mill was the most important proponent of utilitarianism, a theory of morality for determining the rightness or wrongness of any action. This paper looks at Mill's 1863 book "Utilitarianism" in which he codified the principles of utilitarianism. The paper shows that Mill?s principle of utility is helpful in distinguishing the rightness or wrongness of an action from the motives of the actor or agent. This principle of utility led Mill to support liberal feminism which he saw as morally right because allowing women the chance to make intellectual contributions to society promoted happiness for the greater number of people.
From the Paper
"People who sought to prohibit women from working may have had good motives, based on their religious beliefs or their fear of introducing social disorder. However, according to Mill, the result of these prohibitive actions was that society lost the potential contributions of educated women. Mill believed that the harm created by denying women?s contributions to art and science far outweighed any potential good that resulted from maintaining the status quo. When judged by the principle of utility, the subjugation of women was thus a morally indefensible attitude that failed to promote the higher good. Despite their supposed good motives, people who fought against women?s rights engaged in morally wrong actions."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 2003.
A discussion of the inherent flaws of utilitarianism and the problems with employing the theory as a practical moral system.
1,058 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the principles of utilitarianism, a deontological theory that assesses morality by looking ahead to the end result and the consequences that it will cause in terms if the happiness generated. It outlines some of the criticisms levelled at utilitarianism as a theory- such as those of ignoring personal factors, being too complex to undertake,and not allowing for any concrete intrimnsic moral values.
From the Paper
"It is also not possible for an individual to be able to fully envisage all of the possible consequences an action might lead to. The decision made may therefore not be fully informed and could have disastrous unforeseeable results. As a deontological theory then, it becomes redundant. The act of calculation itself becomes too complicated to be able to employ in everyday life. People are not able to contemplate any result that could arise from any action they consider in terms of the happiness benefit. This hugely undermines the practicality of such a theory, as it would unrecognisably transform a persons life."
| |
|
Natural Rights, Rule and Act Utilitarianism, 2001.
A look at the British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham?s famous work " Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" in which he details his theory of Utilitarianism.
1,140 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses Bentham?s views on natural rights and how at first sight Utilitarianism seems to be antithetical to the idea of basic rights and whether it justifies the deprivation of an individual?s basic rights to serve the interests of the greatest numbers. It also explains how the theory of utilitarianism would justify respect for certain rights, and discuss the difference between rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism.
From the Paper
"Jeremy Bentham believed in applying empirical methods, rationalism and deductive arguments to the development of moral and legal theories. At the outset of his Principles of Morals and Legislation he has identified the basis of the principle of Utility on which the Utilitarianism has been founded?pain and pleasure, and calls them the two ?sovereign masters? of mankind. The principle of utility, on which most of Bentham?s work is based, has been explained by him as: ?Any action that promotes happiness of an individual or lessens pain is right while any action that increases pain or decreases happiness is wrong.? He further explains that the happiness of the individual is the same as the happiness of the community since the community is nothing but the sum total of individuals. Another key element in Bentham?s theory of Utility is the concept of the happiness for the greatest number?and his belief that the happiness for the greatest number of people is quantifiable. He has also expanded his theory to include the acts of not only the individuals but that of the government as well, and because of his interest in law, the scope of his work included the legislative and judicial reforms."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 2004.
This paper examines Utilitarianism, while discussing James Rachels' essay 'The Elements of Moral Philosophy'.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the merits and demerits of Utilitarianism are considered. The writer discusses Utilitarianism in light of James Rachels' essay, "The Elements of Moral Philosophy". Ultimately, the writer concludes by abondoning this theory for its inconsistency with liberty, justice and fairness.
From the Paper
"'The Elements of Moral Philosophy' by James Rachels contains an exposition of Utilitarianism that considers the strengths and weaknesses of this unique moral philosophy. Like all ethical theories, Utilitarianism advances a conception of the Good that is expected to prevail. All action if it is to be considered moral or Right must conform to that ethical conception of the Good. In Utilitarianism the Good is happiness and action that produces the most happiness for the most people is Right action. Conversely, it is wrong to take any action ... "
| |
|
Morality in "Munich", 2005.
Discusses the moral issues in the movie "Munich" by Steven Spielberg in relation to moral theories such as Benthamite utilitarianism, Kantian duty ethics and Hobbesian egoism.
3,001 words (approx. 12.0 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 88.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the issues of morality and ethics pertaining to the actions of various characters and organizations in the movie "Munich". It explores the theories of Immanuel Kant, Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Hobbes in relation to the movie. The paper also explores whether the acts of the P.L.O. and the Israeli government's reprisal, as seen in the movie "Munich", are justifiable by any moral/ethical theories.
Paper Outline:
Introduction
Operation Spring of Youth: the Israeli Government's Revenge
Religious Ethics and Judaism
Possible Counterarguments
Kantian Response
The Never-Ending Acts of Revenge
The Hitman
Avner's Journey
Conclusion
Bibliography
From the Paper
"The Israelis and Palestinians, who are deemed eternal enemies by many, both seek to claim the same piece of Holy Land for their own. A good guide that we can use here is contractarianism, or the social contract theory. By putting myself in the shoes of both Israel and Palestine, I realise they are both very similar in nature. They both seek to return to their Holy Land which, as mentioned in the Torah and in the Qur'an, is almost identical and they are also building a homeland for themselves. With such similarities, it would be easier for them to understand each others standpoint. Agreeing with Hobbes' adaptation to the Golden Rule, I feel that neither Israel nor Palestine should have taken to such violent means to intimidate or to take revenge on each other. This is especially so since their motivations are mere inclinations and cannot be held by both parties as morally or even logically right."
| |
|
Utilitarianism and Enron, 2008.
This paper explains the theory of utilitarianism in relation to the Valhalla oil trading scandal at Enron.
734 words (approx. 2.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper provides an overview of the utilitarian moral theory and how it is applicable to the Valhalla oil trading scandal at Enron. The paper shows how this theory highlights important components of Enron's interactions with its environment and how Kenneth Lay dealt with ethical issues. The paper explains how utilitarianism allows unethical actions so long as these actions give rise to sufficient benefits and how the Valhalla oil trading scandal in Enron is an example of this.
From the Paper
"The utilitarian moral theory or the 'greatest happiness principle' according to notes from Russell Marcus is based on the idea that the moral measure of an action is measured by the addition to total utility. Specifically, the morally correct or right act produces the greatest utility/satisfaction/action for the most individuals within a society. Marcus's class notes identify the three clauses of the Utilitarian Moral Theory as 1) consequentialism; where acts are judged by their outcomes. 2) Hedonism; where outcomes are evaluated by the total amount of happiness/utility they derive for the individual. 3) Equalitarianism; where each individual is accounted for as one entity, that is, without just cause no one is worth more than another (Marcus)."
| |
|
Benefits of a Teleological Theory of Morality, 2004.
Compares teleology, deontology, and the virtue-based systems of morality, making an argument for the teleological system of morality.
1,142 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay brings out the positive and negative points in the three major systems of morality: teleology, deontology, and the Aristotle's virtue-based systems of morality. It then explains why Mill's theory of Utilitarianism (teleology) would be better in today's society.
From the Paper
"The majority of the population, probably including yourself, claims they act "morally". Many of these people ask other people to act "morally", but when you ask these "moral" people what morality is they stand there for a minute, and almost every single person will give you the wrong answer. So what is morality? In brief, morality is a basic set of principles that people follow. A perfect example would be Osama Bin Laden, a man that believes completely in what he does, and does it to his best. He has his own set of "morals" which he follows perfectly. He is acting morally. On the other hand we have Saddam Hussein; he does not follow any set of standards consistently, and therefore is not considered "moral". Obviously someone who acts morally may be acting morally according to their set of standards, but in our opinion are very wrong. This is because we have different systems of morality. There are three major systems of morality: Immanuel Kant's theory of Deontology, Aristotle's theory on Virtues, and finally the theory of Utility, or the Utilitarian principles of Teleology."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 2005.
This paper discusses the philosophies of two categories of utilitarianism: Act and rule.
2,275 words (approx. 9.1 pages), 14 sources, MLA, $ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that act utilitarianism involves independent acts; whereas, rule utilitarianism involves the laws people observe while they act; act utilitarianism believes that people must do whichever action will cause the maximum good and the minimum ill; whereas, rule utilitarianism believes that people must observe laws, which will cause the maximum good and the minimum ill for everybody involved. The author points out that act utilitarianism states it would be ethically incorrect to fritter away hours on recreational pursuits like viewing television because it would be better spent on more societal welfare like philanthropic activities; however, banning recreational actions does not appear justifiable. The paper concludes that, hypothetically, the optimum purpose and law may be act utilitarianism; however, this might be idealistically insubstantial because any type of utilitarianism has to admit the inclination of the people to follow general laws.
From the Paper
"As per act utilitarianism, it is the importance of the outcomes of the specific act that matters while resolving if the act is correct. Act utilitarianism asserts that acts are to be weighed as correct or erroneous only on the worth of integrity or immorality of their outcomes. While evaluating the integrity of the outcomes, the sole entity that counts is well being which causes somebody's living to progress smoothly for him or her. Well-being is the only entity that is excellent for its individual reason. Act utilitarianism also asserts that the appropriate act can be construed as such that generates the highest total of well being whilst evaluating without any prejudice intensifications and attenuation in the well being of every one impacted by the act."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 2002.
A discussion of the theories of utilitarianism.
2,348 words (approx. 9.4 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at utilitarianism or the principle of utility whose basis is the idea that pleasure and happiness are intrinsically valuable, that pain and suffering are intrinsically invaluable and that anything else has value only in its causing happiness or preventing suffering.
Outline
Introduction: What is Utility?
The Moral Theory of Consequentialism
Consequentialism and Utilitarianism
"Right" and "Wrong"
Utilitarianism and Equality
Negative Utilitarianism
Criticism of Utilitarianism
Conclusions
From the Paper
"Consequentialists typically take one of three views about what is intrinsically good. Hedonistic consequentialists hold that the only thing that is intrinsically good is pleasure. Eudaimonistic consequentialists hold that the only thing that is intrinsically good is happiness, which on some views is a broader notion than pleasure. Third, preferential consequentialists hold that what is intrinsically good is desire satisfaction, or the satisfaction of preferences. If all one ever wanted was pleasure or happiness, this would reduce to one of the other views, but in fact most seem to have desires for things other than their own pleasure or happiness, for example the wellbeing of those close to them (Sidgwick, 1998, 34)."
|
|
|
