Weaknesses Of Act Utilitarianism Essays

Against this, Williams argued that there is a crucial moral distinction between a person being killed by me, and being killed by someone else because of an act or omission of mine.This is a weakness to Bentham’s theory but not to utilitarianism because you can still please the majority without looking at the Hedonic Calculus every time you want to complete an act.The captain who has arrested the Indians says that if Jim will kill one of them, the others will be released in honor of Jim’s status as a guest, but if he does not, all the Indians will be killed.This is a weakness in utilitarianism as Williams is saying that the utilitarian loses the ability to preserve our status of moral actors and decision makers.Utilitarianism is a teleolo...

However, they may be broken in exceptional circumstances and consequently Mill argued there was strong and weak rule utilitarianism; Strong Utilitarianism is one where one should never break a rule that is established, and Weak Utilitarianism is one where there may be situations when the assessment of the rules in a particular case of a particular act may take precedence over the general rule.His idea of Utilitarianism, however, seeks to find a rational means of assessing how best to put this promotion of happiness into practice, and is split into two types; Act Utilitarianism is the earliest form, in which what is deemed right is based on the assessment of results of a particular action, and Rule Utilitarianism, which allows to be taken...

This paper will compare and contrast both theories and focus on each of their strengths and weaknesses.Believers of act utilitarianism believe that everyone should perform the act that does the most good for everyone.Rule utilitarianism states that everyone should follow the rule that brings about the most good for everyone affected by that act.Under ACT utilitarianism it is also hard to pass down wisdom or educate the young when there are no rules in place.Act Utilitarianism believes that all situations are different.

So this sort of Rule Utilitarianism, where you can break the rules if it leads to the greater good is really like Act Utilitarianism.One of the benefits of Act Utilitarianism is that it is very flexible unlike Rule Utilitarianism.Weak or soft, Rule Utilitarianism say that sometimes you can break the rules if doing so leads to the greater good.Unlike Act Utilitarianism, this principle states that you must follow the rules even if it doesn’t lead to the greatest pleasure of the individual at that time.Act utilitarian supports the principle of utility must be applied to each individual situation.

Evaluate the main strengths and weaknesses of the theory The strengths and weaknesses of Utilitarianism vary between different versions of the theory.Bentham proposed an Act Utilitarian approach, meaning that he treated each individual action separately, without any rules to guide the individual.It may be that some other and more modern version of the theory can overcome these problems, such as Welfare Utilitarianism (as supported by Peter Singer) or Two Rule Utilitarianism (as suggested by R. M. Hare).Such a compromise offers a more promising approach to ethics than the classical forms of Utilitarianism.An advantage of Bentham’s Act Utilitarianism is that it considers the consequences and happiness which result from actions; this seems ...

So far I have considered Bentham and Mill, who believed in ‘act’ and ‘rule’ utilitarianism.Others have thought of something else known as ‘preference utilitarianism’ arguing that we should act so as to maximize the satisfaction of peoples preferences, and the preferences of person concerned should be taken into account, thus allowing people to say what for them constitutes pleasure or pain for them.Appealing to the utilitarian standard, you conclude that it is right to stay at home.”8 This highlights the fact that what the utilitarian theory says is correct is generally seen by people who do not believe in the utility principle as not.The question ‘What is good?’ arises often when considering utilitarianism, the classic answer to this ac...

The final theory, and the one which I most prefer within Utilitarianism is Preference Utilitarianism.Also, an act can be considered right/wrong completely independently of pleasure/pain.Raised as a strict utilitarian, he had his whole life to experience its weaknesses first hand, and came up with some very clever solutions for the criticisms above.Finally, how do we know what consequences are actually relevant to the morality of an act?Where Act Utilitarianism takes each act individually, Rule Utilitarianism is much more general.

The use of utilitarianism is a controversial subject for many people, some believe by using it, it can bring happiness to the majority of society, others say by using utilitarianism it can take away peoples own judgment making our society unjust.One of the main weaknesses of Bentham’s version of Utilitarianism is that there is the potential to justify any act.If you get rid of rules and allow people to choose to act in the greater good, they will actually act selfishly, and then try to justify their actions by claiming they were in the greater good, this would also lead to an unjust society because people would and argue that they were trying to follow the hedonic calculus.In conclusion all the information shows that utilitarianism can h...

Act Utilitarianism is about creating the greatest amount of pleasure in a particular situation through a particular action.Out of duty you must give the money to the park however if you are following Utilitarianism your belief is that the money must going into creating the most good/ happiness which would be saving those 10,000 people.Mill’s Rule utilitarianism is very practical and sets about certain rules for society that must be maintained which can help societies to operate.However there are weaknesses to rule utilitarianism too again there is no defence for minorities or any help at what defines happiness but also this time if you are following rules you could end up obeying them even when more happiness can be created by disobeying...

Any prejudices the decision maker may hold are eradicated in Utilitarianism, as they have to stick to the main rule.In conclusion I believe that Utilitarianism is simple and easy to apply yet this does not take away the obvious large amount of flaws concerned with the theory.Utilitarianism is a theory that Christians can relate to.It Asserts that we should always act so as to produce the greatest ratio of good to evil for everyone concerned with our decision and As with all moral theories, has many strengths and weaknesses.The largest connection Christianity has with Utilitarianism is the death of Jesus.

Another key difference is that Act Utilitarianism is flexible as it holds no more rules, (other than the principle of Utility in all situations), as the action that should be applied to every situation is relative in comparison to Rule utilitarianism which has an established set of rules that cannot transition from age to age.For example, over 2000 years ago slavery might have been accepted and considered socially moral, over the years Act utilitarians would have changed their views on this due to the flexibility of their principle, while a Rule Utilitarian would not break the set of rules established for this particular situation.Act Utilitarianism is also much more flexible as it allows the principle of utility to be applied relatively...

Preference utilitarianism argues that you should act in a way that reflects the preference of the person concerned, unless that preference is outweighed by other preferences.In certain rare situations Act Utilitarians are allowed to break traditional moral rules if by doing so they produce a balance of happiness over misery.He believed that Utilitarianism could be made into a moral system for ordinary individuals as well as for lawmakers.There are typically three types of Utilitarians – Act, Rule and Preference.Act utilitarianism simply deals with the consequences of individual acts, and accepts no general rules, except that we should promote the greatest happiness.

For example, a deontologist could day, ‘You should never steal, this means by the act itself of stealing is wrong.Act utilitarianism is the application on a case by case basis.Preference Utilitarianism by R. M. Hare where he tries to solve the problem that people have different ideas of pleasure even if it’s something very small and specific, not everyone wants and thinks the same.It is said that the act states the most number of good for the most number of people is generally good.Lastly, there are other forms of Utilitarianism such as the “Best Interest Utilitarianism” by Peter Singer where he tries to solve the problem that some pleasures are bad for us.

Weak rule utilitarians say that although there should be generally accepted guidelines, they should not always be adhered to indefinitely.The rules must be formed using utilitarian principles that if followed universally, would produce the greatest happiness for society.This was later termed ‘Rule Utilitarianism’.A preference utilitarian judges a moral action according to whether they fit in with the preferences of the individuals involved to achieve the greatest good.Bentham said ‘An act is right if it delivers more pleasure than pain”.

Therefore, Utilitarianism is the stronger argument.The Utilitarian Argument Classical, or Act, Utilitarianism maintains that the morally right act is the one that yields maximum happiness for all sentient beings impartially.Rand says that personal reasons, such as values and pursuit of a flourishing life, are adequate to justify the act.We know how the money will benefit the Pakistani villagers and we can quantify the amount of happiness and good that entails the act of giving aid to others.Conclusion In this paper, I have presented the theories of Ethical Egoism and Utilitarianism, delved into the morally relevant facts, and reflected on why each argument is good.

* The refusal to acknowledge intrinsically wrong acts: a judge might convict an innocent man in 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 made unhappy by the lack of a conviction and the riot; but is it intrinsically wrong to imprison or execute an innocent man?Some Act utilitarians would argue that, yes, we should send most of our money overseas, since that would create the most happiness for the most people, but is that too demanding?* Rule utilitarianism may just be act utilitarianism in disguise: all the rules are focussed around the maximisation of happiness.* Utilitarianism “seems to require more of a human that many are capabl...

HOWEVER, THIS WAS JUST TO HELP, AND IF THE CURRENT SITUATION REQUIRES A DIFFERENT RESOLUTION, YOU SHOULD BE FREE TO ACT IN WHATEVER WAY BRINGS ABOUT THE GREATER GOOD.Utilitarianism: Rule Utilitarianism RULE UTILITARIANS RECOGNISE THAT WE NEED RULES TO LIVE BY.Utilitarianism: Consequentialism UTILITARIANISM IS TELEOLOGICAL – IT IS THE END OR PURPOSE OF AN ACTION THAT MAKES IT RIGHT OR WRONG.THE REASON FOR THESE UNUSUAL ASSERTIONS IS THAT UTILITARIANS ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF AN ACT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE ACT ITSELF IS.ACT UTILITARIANISM IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE PUREST FORMS OF UTILITARIANISM, AS IT ALLOWS THE INDIVIDUAL COMPLETE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE WHATEVER LEADS TO THE GREATER good.

• Mill argues for a weak rule utilitarianism.For example, Reitz, Wall, and Love argued that utilitarianism isn’t an appropriate tool when outcomes affect a large number of separate parties with different needs or in complex processes whose outcomes and side effects can’t be readily foreseen, e.g.Ethical business practice, using utilitarianism, would thus consider the good and bad consequence for everyone the action would affect, treat everybody as having equal rights (at least in Mill’s weak rule utilitarianism), with no bias towards self, and would use it as an objective, quantitative way to make a moral decision.Utilitarianism suffers from the difficulty that costs and benefits may not be equally distributed.As with Bentham’s formulati...

The largest connection Christianity has with Utilitarianism is the death of Jesus.There is also some flexibility for emotions in moral decision making according to Rule Utilitarianism.Utilitarianism is a theory that Christians can relate to.These are two desirable things as Utilitarianism says that pleasure is the sole good and pain is the sole evil, “Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters-pleasure and pain”.However, Utilitarianism does accept evil where Christianity most certainly does not.

The weak version allows that there may be situations where pursuit of self-interest is not the most important thing and may actually be contrary to the best interests of an individual when concerning morality.To an ethical egoist, morality is still pertinent and there are strong and weak types of the theory, with the strong version holding it is always moral to promote one’s own good, and it is never moral not to promote it, while the weak version states although it is always moral to promote one’s own good, it is not necessarily never moral to not (Moseley, 2006).Retrieved April 22, 2008, from .These options counter the utilitarian approach, which many find the preferable way for humans to act, and the greatest good for the greatest n...

I feel that when believing that utilitarianism is advantageous, rule utilitarianism must be considered.To finally identify the problems of Utilitarianism, many feel that it is an unacceptable theory as: it is very difficult to carry out practically, the theory does not promote goodwill or the actions of morally acceptable intentions, it makes no allowances for personal relationships, it is anti-religious and in a sense taking God’s role into human hands.All of which could be condoned under act utilitarianism, if the circumstance showed that it ‘had greater utility on ocassion’.It also stresses that we should not be put off by criticisms as we should act in the confidence that the Consequential Principle is a reasonable method of decipher...

Utilitarian weakness of their ethic maybe that it’s all about the results and no one can always predict the results.On the other hand Deontologists perspective of making the promise is an element of Kant’s’ Pure practical reason’ theory, ‘positive act we take in order to shape our orld as we think is right; it is the act of our will… ‘ (Thompson, 2008: 168).If an act was done with selfish intentions however, the outcome made others happy, that’s all that would matter.Taking into account another ethical theory to get a better understanding of Batman’s morals in contrast to deontology and utilitarianism.So how will Batman’s decision not to kill the villains be seen in utilitarian aspect?

The type of utilitarianism outlined to date is termed ‘act utilitarianism.’ Every single act is judged by its individual consequences and decisions on morality reached.Ethical egoism is the prescriptive doctrine that all persons ought to act from their own self-interest.The sense of utilitarianism can be started in this way: the rightness or wrongness of an act or moral rule is solely a matter of the nonmoral good produced directly or indirectly in the consequences of that act of rule.Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds merely that it is rational to act in one’s self-interest.It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest.

As generally defined, deontology is the ethical judgment of a certain act which founds itself on the intent of the act itself to serve as the basis for which to determine the morality of the said act.Vintage Books, 2007. .Utilitarianism is the concept of analyzing an action’s moral worth by basing it on the outcome or consequences of the aforementioned action, therefore the perfect representation of the maxim “The end justifies the means.” Utilitarians often keep in mind what they deem to be “the greater good” and anything less than that is to be considered expendable.In both cases, the old men appear weak and ill-suited to survival in the harsh world of the novel.Works Cited .

The main criticism of Utilitarianism is that it is difficult to predict the outcome of action.Luke noticed that he failed in Ben Sorow's weak point.It insists that we should always act to provide the greatest proportion of good and evil to all who care about our decisions.She has Utilitarian originally developed by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century and was fully developed by John Stewart Mill in the 19th century.The next paragraph explains the strengths and weaknesses of Antigone and, finally, the evolution of roles throughout the play.

In addition, utilitarianism ensures that our emotions do not take over; emotions must be pushed aside in order to make a fair and equal judgement.G. E. Moore had another criticism – he said the utilitarianism committed the naturalistic fallacy.Despite these weaknesses, utilitarianism has proved to be very successful in the centuries since it first began.This poses a problem for utilitarianism, as bullying is clearly wrong.However, although utilitarianism considers the majority, it does not protect minorities.

These models all have the similar common values, so were brought together to form the National Decision Model, whilst keeping the benefits of simplicity and utilizing the intrinsic aspects from documents such as: The Peelian Principles, Human Rights Act and Force Values etc (ACPO n.d).(1973) Utilitarianism: for and against.Although these are all strong weaknesses within utilitarianism, strong believers of this theory like Bentham and Mill, have confidence in that the strengths outweigh these perceived flaws.Genniet, H. (2010) Utilitarian Philosophy [Online].(1863) Utilitarianism.

In my own opinion I consider both humans and animals to be sentient, the reason for this is because both are capable of experiencing pain and suffering, therefore I would favour Singer’s form of utilitarianism over Mill and Bentham as by taking into account species as well as humans.As a theory Act Utilitarianism could lead to exploitation of the minority, and from this Mill derived a form of Utilitarianism that stressed the importance of justice for all, and therefore stated that an action should not be based on whether it brings the most quantity of pleasure instead the focus should be on whether the actions bring the greatest quality of happiness.However for some people it can be seen as unhelpful to use utilitarianism ethics, as even...

To determine whether or not Kant’s theory of deontology is effective and practical enough to use as an everyday working guide, I will assess the strengths and weaknesses and come to an educated conclusion.The final maxim is ‘Act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends’ .But perhaps the main reason that deontology fails in my opinion is that Kant offers no advice for how to act when duties collide.Again this corrects what many see as a flaw in theories like utilitarianism where punishing an innocent minority can be justified if it were to benefit the majority.Kant tells us to do our duty, always, just because it is our duty and this will not be enough to convince the majority to change the way they act....

In this situation, no matter who you give the candy to, you would be committing an act that is morally wrong (since in either case, you are preventing one of the children from achieving a rational goal).In act utilitarianism, a person performs the acts that benefit the most people, regardless of personal feelings or society laws.Act utilitarianism holds the same definition of utilitarianism as described above.When one understands each individual theory, including its strengths and weaknesses, one can make the most informed decision when trying to achieve an ethically correct answer to a dilemma.So it can be concluded that “Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law.” Kant sees all people as having intrinsic moral value bec...