Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Describe the main strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism Essay
Strengths* Utilitarianism is simple. It doesnt have a lot of compound regularises, still instead the individual can decide would be the surmount, by how it affects others.* It is flexible no law or principle is unch tout ensembleengeable.* It allows for circumstance, so you can decide what is the trounce thing to do given(p) the modern circumstance.* It ties in with the Christian ethic of unconditional love, as preached by Jesus.* If soulfulness believes that twain lying and breaking promises be acts that are intrinsically wrong, usefulism provides a principled way in which they can choose which moral rule to break if forced to make a choice between them.* The dialect on impartiality, unselfishness and altruism is to be commended.* There is no lease to consider precedents as absolute just because one action worked for soul does non mean that it must be enforced again, when it may not work for someone else.* It is in addition attractive to secular thinkers, because it makes no high-flown claims to the supernatural or metaphysical. It appeals to tangible results the consequences of an action will be perceived.Weaknesses* What do we mean by joy? What makes us content? It is hard to unsex happiness as it varies with person to person.* Should happiness always be chased? What if we can only be golden if we achieve it in a bad way? Like if a murderer is only quick if he kills someone.* How can we say that happiness from one pleasure is great than from another? There is no way to tell if a temper is any more happy than someone not so clever.* earthly concern do not always treat each other equal. We occupy more about the people close to us and would give them more consideration in an ethical dilemma. Some would claim that utilitarians are scarce i business dealistic and unrealistic because they do not accurately evaluate gracious behaviour and just assume we are all perfect, caring every bit for everyone.* It is impossible to be certain ab out a consequence, which is a familiar problem with teleological ethics.* It is very difficult to measure pleasure given by any outcome. It will take a great deal of time, thought and study, considering effects on both people and the situation.* Can we liken one persons happiness to another persons happiness?* If only the total happiness counts, imagine these two situations A 80% population live very well and are very happy because the other 20% are their slaves. B There are no slaves and everyone is happy notwithstanding not as happy as the 80% in situation A. The total and average happiness in both situations is the same, wherefore to a utilitarian there is no difference between the two, and both are equally morally right, but slavery is considered wrong.* Is spiel Utilitarianism besides de gentlemans gentlemanding? Someone buys a TV for 500, which would make them happy but they could also spend the money saving 1000 lives in Africa. Some Act utilitarians would press that, yes, we should send to the highest degree of our money overseas, since that would create the most happiness for the most people, but is that too demanding?* The refusal to acknowledge intrinsically wrong acts a judge might convict an innocent man in purchase order to prevent a riot that would ensue if he were not convicted a utilitarian would argue that this is permissible because more people would be make unhappy by the lack of a conviction and the riot but is it intrinsically wrong to imprison or execute an innocent man?* Act utilitarians might accuse obtain utilitarians of being legalistic whats the point, they could say, of adjacent a rule when it is clear that the consequences will decrease happiness? In their view, past experience can only give guidelines, not rules.* Rule utilitarianism may just be act utilitarianism in disguise all the rules are focussed around the maximisation of happiness. Rule utilitarians believe that the best way to maximise happiness is to maximis e happiness with every act- but this is just act utilitarianism.* Human rights, justices, and other such values may not have any place in a utilitarian ethical system if the wishes of the majority override them.* Christians, Muslims, and others of religious faith would argue that god decides what is rights, and what is the best outcome it is not four pieces to judge to calculate.* Utilitarianism ignores meaning well benevolent motives.* Utilitarianism seems to require more of a human that many are capable of providing* Just as there are no absolutes for determining acts which are intrinsically wrong, there is also no way to define what is universally good.* There must be adapted account taken of the minority view the majority are not always right, even though the satisfaction of their wishes might create the most happiness.