• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Assess Utilitarianism

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Asses Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory of morality (contrasted with a deontological theory). This means that it bases the moral weight of actions on its consequences, not on the intention (as in deontology). For example, if I was to buy my friend some food I thought he didn't like to annoy him, but it then turned out that it was his favourite food, then that would be a moral act. I think that in many ways Utilitarianism is a good theory, but I disagree with many of the points, as I shall outline. Utilitarianism was first thought of by Jeremy Bentham, and put to paper in his book, 'An Introduction To The Principles Of Morality' in 1780. He stated that "the sole principle that we ought to live and judge others by is utility." His theory was that humans are by nature hedonistic, i.e. we live to find pleasure and avoid pain. From this he drew "The Principle of Utility", which was the "Greatest Happiness" principle. This meant that we must follow a moral system that maximises pleasure and minimises pain for ourselves and our community, because psychological hedonism would imply ethical hedonism. ...read more.

Middle

These criticisms all add up to make this theory very vague and overcomplicated. I support certain elements of it, such as the fact that it's humane and takes emotion strongly into account. Bentham's Utilitarianism is known as 'Act Utilitarianism', because it focuses on individual acts, and that every situation should be approached differently. It's quite weak since it's lack of rules seem to make it lost it's very definition as a moral theory, since they should be based on set rules (although maximise happiness may be that rule). Also, an act can be considered right/wrong completely independently of pleasure/pain. There are other things which can define the morality of an act. The theory also assumes that all beings are equal, though in reality personal relationships will alter this drastically (given the choice, you would save a family member from death over a stranger). I believe this theory is far too weak, vague and imprecise to be of any real use, and its apparent simplicity is non-existent. John Stuart Mill attempted to solve many of these problems with his modifications on the theory. ...read more.

Conclusion

It is also impossible to define these higher or lower pleasures, meaning the theory is still quite vague, and doesn't quite hold up as a moral theory (as criticised by David Hume and G.E. Moore). There have been several modern adaptations of Utilitarianism, including the split between positive and negative. Positive focuses on increasing happiness, whilst negative aims to decrease unhappiness, lending a certain flexibility. Henry Sidgwick proposed Ideal Utilitarianism, where he introduced other principles or values to the greatest happiness principles, such as justice or generosity (making this akin to a theory of virtue). However, this does mean abandoning strict hedonism, which lies at the foundation of Utilitarianism. Moore did agree with this theory, acknowledging that "good cannot be defined purely by happiness or pleasure." The final theory, and the one which I most prefer within Utilitarianism is Preference Utilitarianism. Peter Singer is generally regarded as the father of this theory, with influence from R. M. Hare. It is the most popular contemporary theory of Utilitarianism, and it is understandable since it is the most purely moral, and in many ways modern theory. It is based not on producing the greatest happiness, but instead on maximising the satisfaction of all people involved. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an unfair system of ethics which could not work in the ...

    is, my gut feeling would be to lie, to save the innocent person but according to rule utilitarianism, I have to be honest and tell the maniac where there person is hiding as I'm not allowed to beak a rule, even though in this instance, the result isn't the greatest good.

  2. What is the most telling objection to Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle?

    A teacher has a special obligation to his pupils. To give maximum marks to all his pupils, however, would increase the general happiness in the class. According to utilitarianism the teacher should act so. It may be strange that justice should be a problem for utilitarianism but surprisingly it is.

  1. Synoptic Study, Satre, Engels and Marx

    are given freedom to act as they wish but how can the theory be used by people living in counties in political, social or economic crisis? How can Sartre say that someone living under an oppressive government has absolute freedom?

  2. Utilitarianism. Identify the main problems of Utilitarianism. To what extent do these make ...

    Many people, who do not follow the Christian faith, would refer to utilitarianism to make decisions. C Brown states: "Utilitarian ideas tend to be regarded as a more rational alternative to Christianity as the basis for political and social action."

  1. UTILITARIANISM In this paper I will be discussing utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the theory ...

    Mills wants to know how long is the sadistic voyeur's pleasure going to last, and what is the quantity of pleasure he will gain. The sadistic Voyeur's pleasure will not last long at all. When the men get finished raping the woman his desire might be fulfilled for that day,

  2. Nietzsche and Mill on Conventional Morality

    aggregate happiness, rather than because the action itself was intrinsically good or because it demonstrated an intrinsically good personal quality. However whilst Mill judges the value of the action itself differently to a conventional moralist, it is a mistake to think he would judge the person committing the action any differently.

  1. Discussing John Dewey.

    It cannot serve both. One is based upon the refection of historical data without the benefit of experience, the other on the reflection of experience in the current society or culture. The experiences of past cultures may very well have been much different, and therefore they cam to different conclusions about those experiences.

  2. Why are justice and integrity problematic for utilitarianism?

    Even on this fundamental level, therefore, it can be shown that people due to various levels of personal relations with others will find difficulty in impartially aggregating maximal happiness. This argument is often deemed the "Integrity Objection", and relates to the way utilitarianism does not consider the importance of an individual's own life.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work