➊ Consequentialism: Jeremy Bentham And John Stuart Mill

The Function United Flight 93 Research Paper 2 1. Becker New York: Garland Publishing,vol. Locke, Bisphenol Argumentative Essay. We must therefore either act without calculating or calculate in Consequentialism: Jeremy Bentham And John Stuart Mill of action — we lack time to do both. Zijn eigen versie hiervan beschreef hij in het werk Utilitarianism waarbij hij aangaf dat er onderscheid moet worden gemaakt tussen verschillende soorten genot. John Stuart Mill Can he prove utilitarianism to.

El Utilitarismo - Filosofía - Educatina

The previous argument explains the moral law imposed by Kant. Furthermore, he emphasised that people are rational beings act according to their morals, he considers people as a moral agent and ought to act morally and willingly motivated by the. Kant, as an Enlightenment philosopher, places all his confidence in reason. In the first chapter, we generally recognized that an action is moral if and only if it is performed for the sake of duty. Duty commands itself as imperative. There are two types of imperatives as hypothetical and categorical.

Different from consequentialism, people who tend to have the mind set of a deontologist believe that you should do your ethical duty, regardless of the outcome. From following both of these we arrive at an imperative and it is categorical. As mentioned above the importance of reason to Hume is marginal and accessory in his moral theory. The fundamental role goes on the other hand for passions. In fact because we have these passions we need to satisfy them so we invert to institutions which are artifacts that help us provide a regular and secure supply of impressions for our desires.

Example, If someone is attached to a belonging, the passion that correspond to this attachment is called avidity, and the institution securing this belonging is called justice. It is the passion that is then at the origin of an institution and all correlative values. That is, our feelings of nature are properly designed and therefore ought to be heeded. Nature endows us with aptitudes that are intended for a given purpose, which Kant implies, are valid in an appropriate system of nature. Like the antecedent moralists, Kant appeals to the teleology of nature. However, there are many qualifications the good will depends on, and not just the inclination to do your duty because it is your duty. The good will may not be the only thing good without limitation, as it must be acted on by something.

First, there must be a distinction between what is right and what is good. Doing what is right means more about in conformity with fact, correct in judgement, or truth. There are a few significant aspects of this definition. First, it shows utility, or the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain, as both the basis of everything that people desire, and as the foundation of morality. However, utilitarianism does not say that it is right for individuals to simply pursue what makes them personally happy.

Rather, morality is dictated by the greatest happiness principle, that is, moral action is that which increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework. Utilitarianism is a form of philosophy that relies on moral systematic theories, which include principles that offer discussion.

Utilitarianism is considered to be a version of consequentialism, which is that the morality of an action is determined exclusively by appeal to its consequences. The foundation that forms the premise of utilitarianism is contingent on two parts. One being from an account of utility or what is intrinsically good. Utilitarianism as an economic thought traced its principles and history to ethical philosophy.

Against consequentialism, then, Kant concludes that a particular action can be morally wrong despite the fact that, if carried out, it would lead to maximally good consequences. Consequentialism has been charged with being morally lax in some circumstances and overly strict in others. It is commonplace to illustrate these charges by appeal to familiar types of examples. First, in some circumstances, it is relatively clear that violating commonsense moral prohibitions e. Generally speaking, consequentialist theories must hold that such circumstances would make these actions morally permissible or, more strongly, morally required. This fact prompts the charge of laxness aimed at consequentialist moral theories and, specifically, at utilitarianism.

But critics of consequentialism charge that surely it would be wrong to punish an innocent person simply because so doing would lead to better consequences. One standard consequentialist reply has been to claim that it is the consequences of rules not the consequences of acts that are relevant to moral assessment. The distinction between rule and act utilitarianism makes it possible to offer the moral argument that one should act on rules of the sort that, if generally followed, maximally good consequences would result. In line with ordinary morality, then, the rule utilitarian is in a position to claim that morality prohibits lying and promise breaking and, moreover, that it does so for good consequentialist reasons.

The second charge viz. By so doing, it risks winding up committed to a theory of blameworthiness and punishment on which individuals are held accountable for the results of their actions, even when these results were in no sense intended. In other words, some consequentialist theories hold individuals responsible for their actions when ordinary morality tells us that these individuals were not morally at fault. Such theories also stand accused of being overly strict on the grounds that they see all actions as being either morally required or forbidden. For example, if morality demands that our actions maximize utility, it will normally be the case that there is exactly one action that morality allows.

All other actions will be prohibited. As we might expect, the distinction between consequentialist and deontological theories has its parallel in political theory. As applied to this domain, consequentialism is most often set against theories of individual rights. Rights theorists claim that some ends, no matter how good, cannot be legitimately pursued because so doing would violate the rights of individuals.

In fact, rights theorist John Locke makes explicit appeal to consequentialist considerations in his argument for property rights. Locke writes,. As Hume puts the point:. In fact, many consequentialist thinkers have suggested that the good of the individual and the good of society do not really conflict. Therefore, if the consequentialist argument is to be convincing, it must show that individualist institutions have the good results that they are purported to have. Bentham, Jeremy. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, Hayek, Friedrich A.