| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "UTILITARIANISM": |
|
|
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."
| |
|
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.
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)."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Rule Utilitarianism, 2004.
A look at how rule utilitarianism provides a useful and powerful ethical framework for business.
732 words (approx. 2.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how moral decisions in business are best served by adhering to the ethical code of rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism provides a workable code for businesses, especially in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom financial scandals. It shows how, by adopting rule utilitarianism, businesses can help to prevent serious damage caused by decisions based solely on the consequences of a single act and, instead, allow businesses to focus on ethical rules that ensure the best long-term benefit for society.
From the Paper
"In essence, ultitarianism argues that an action is morally correct if the consequences of the action have a more favorable than unfavorable impact on everyone involved. Jeremy Bentham is commonly known as the father of utilitarianism, and perhaps known for his description of act utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism, it is morally wrong to commit any act that will result in consequences that are more negative than positive. However, act utilitarianism can lead to some serious moral quandaries, including a seeming over permissiveness of many seemingly morally abhorrent acts. For example, act utilitarianism would allow specific acts of torture to be morally acceptable if the specific outcome of these acts were more good than bad."
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 2005.
An overview of the philosophy of Utilitarianism developed by John Stuart Mill.
1,700 words (approx. 6.8 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper begins with a look at how Utilitarianism has affected our present-day economic and social paradigm and then, while briefly acknowledging its positive aspects, takes a deeper look at the criticisms of the Utilitarian philosophy. Next, the paper presents a brief outline of the philosophy, as developed by John Stuart Mill, and explains the attraction of Utilitarianism during Mill's day. The paper continues with a look at additional criticisms of Utilitarianism and a discussion of the author's point of view on Utilitarianism and why these criticisms may be wrong.
From the Paper
"Utilitarianism has had a profound impact on many areas of society, including politics and education, since its inception in the nineteenth century. In terms of institutional application in a historical sense, ?The main tenets of utilitarianism included the exposure of all institutions to the tests of rational utility, in the interest of the greatest
happiness of the greatest number? and the possibility of an objective ethics? (Williams, p. 88). Some others have likened utilitarianism to an oversimplification of the universe that does not take into account its essential idiosyncrasies and variant circumstances, and sees people, perhaps rather narrowly, less as individuals and more as examples of
national or economic statistics. Either way, utilitarianism has often been evinced by an over-reliance on statistics, and these statistics could easily be correlated with the over-reliance on facts that have formed the basis for the rote educational system, which still persists in many areas."
| |
|
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?"
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Utilitarian Bioethics, 2006.
This paper discusses the philosophy of utilitarian bioethics in reference to the management of medical resources.
1,655 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that utilitarian bioethics directs health care resources to people who have the most potential of contributing to society. The author argues that utilitarian bioethics is putting patients and standards of health care at risk by making the most vulnerable people such as the poor, handicapped, elderly and disabled at the greatest risk of not receiving advanced and costly medical care. The paper relates that utilitarian bioethics, which were originally introduced by Jeremy Bentham in 1789, do not adhere to any moral value or acknowledge the sanctity of life; therefore, it is easy for a utilitarian to justify ideas that make most ethicists cringe.
From the Paper
"So far, we have examined extreme cases and ideas governed by the Utilitarian movement. In its everyday use, this ideology is terrifying, because it affects so many people. In the past the Hippocratic Oath directive guided physicians to do everything medically necessary to keep a patient alive as long as possible. This was not always the best course of action for a patient and started the idea of patient autonomy. Autonomy gives the patient the right to refuse care if he or she desires. As an example, being dependent on a medical machine to prolong life is not what many people want."
| |
|
Restraint Orders and Utilitarian Theory, 2006.
This paper discusses utilitarian theory and restraint orders within the setting of hospitals.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 6 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines a curious hospital policy within the context of utilitarian theory. Specifically, the paper explains what utilitarian theory is and notes how utilitarian theory can be used to both condemn and justify the policy. At the same time the paper outlines how the greatest good for the greatest number can be found by arriving at a middle approach to restraint policy which permits staff to only restrain individuals when they constitute a legitimate physical danger to themselves and to others.
From the Paper
"In some American hospitals, standing restraint orders and restraint PNR orders are not permitted. Using the utilitarian theory, the following paper will critique this policy position and argue that such a policy directive is untenable - at least according to utilitarian dictates. To put it another way, any hospital restraint policy which does not allow for standing restraint and/or for restraint PNR orders is essentially one which is privileging the freedom and interests of one individual above the collective interests and security concerns of everyone else within the facility; suffice it to say, the general threat to the well-being of others would seem to argue against any such initiative aimed at forbidding restraint measures within a hospital setting."
| |
|
Utilitarian versus Kantian Notions of Punishment, 2002.
Presents two perspectives on punitive institutions: Those followed by the Utilitarians and those proposed by the philosopher, Kant.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Utilitarians were not so idealistic that they neglected to address the issue of punishment. The notion of a retributive justice, or an eye for an eye, went against Utilitarian principles as it promoted unhappiness rather than happiness. They did, however, accede to the existence of a prison system on two conditions. The first was that, by locking the criminal away, future unhappiness might be prevented in that the criminal was incapacitated and could, therefore, commit no more crimes. The second condition was that prisons become facilities for rehabilitation and not punishment, thereby promoting the happiness of the criminal as well as society in general. Kant (1724-1804) defined a philosophical principle known as the Categorical Imperative. Unlike the Utilitarians, who believed there was no right or wrong way to do things, only a better way, (i.e., the way that would lead to the greatest happiness for society), Kant believed in a set of rules from which man could not deviate. Moral rules, then, were categorical and not dependent on personal whims or desires. You should not lie under any circumstance. You should help people whether you want to or not.
| |
|
Utilitarianism, 1999.
This essay examines Jeremy Bentham's theory of utilitarianism and particularly what is meant by 'the principle of utility.'
1,537 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 9 sources, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay explains Bentham?s reasons for developing utilitarianism as both a social and political framework. It examines utilitarianism in an individual and private environment, as well as its workings in a more widespread and universal atmosphere. The latter part of this essay focuses on the viability of utilitarianism in the public sphere, and whether it provides appropriate guidance for government policy-making. The main objective of this part of the essay is to determine whether Bentham?s principle of utility is appropriate as the foundation of a political structure. Thusly, it focuses on the attributes and failings of the principle of utility as a public philosophy.
From the Paper
"Bentham?s theory of utilitarianism was a result of deficiencies in government institutions in his country, and their failing to adequately serve the general satisfaction of its population. The principle of utility is based on intrinsic facts that motivate individuals, namely pleasure and pain. It is human nature to pursue pleasure and to avoid pain. Therefore what we ought and ought not to do is determined by these two ?sovereign masters?. The element of pleasure or pain involved in an action determines whether or not an individual, or group of people proceed with that action. All forms of utilitarianism are consequential. In every circumstance or action, a consequence is identified and then compared with the consequence of inaction.Whichever produces the greatest happiness is what ought to be done."
| |
|
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."
| |
|
Rawls and Utilitarianism, 2002.
This paper discusses the difference in Rawls opinion to that of Utilitarianism.
3,525 words (approx. 14.1 pages), 6 sources, $ 129.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Utilitarianism is a theory of ethics that suggests that the rightness or wrongness of a certain action is determined by the amount of happiness that it produces for the greatest number of people. Rawls saw a weakness in utilitarianism in that it assumed that the rights of the minority could be sacrificed for the good of the majority. Rawls believed that the basic social institutions of the well-ordered state, including its constitution, had to satisfy the fundamental principles of social justice. This was his main concern. He especially believed that such a principle was directly connected to having a contract where everyone understood that it was in everyone's interest to have social justice.
|
|
|
