Utilitarianism is a type of ethical moral theory, which, in its basic terms been practised since the classical era. It’s understood now, as it been fully systematized in the modern era. Utilitarianism, in its basic understanding, is assigned to bring greater happiness. This can be found as from the breakdown of the word Utilitarianism: utility is known for, being united, useful and well understood. Utilitarianism expands this word, to spread it to be a united, useful happiness, also called the principle of utility. This may lead to a miss understanding, as happiness can be understood as being happy with oneself or making oneself happy. This would clash with Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is not focused on the one person, but with everyone,
…show more content…
But a more in-depth analysis, or a ‘what if scenario’ could cause issues with Utilitarianism. Such an example is: if a person has to lie, destroy or doing something that many people view as ‘immoral’, to bring utility to the many, then how would Utilitarianism react to this? If a person thinks of happiness or the principle of utility: then lying, or doing an immoral action, may be needed, but what if this action is deeply immoral, such as murder? Then could a Utilitarian be forced to defend the immoral? This has caused a schism in the Utilitarian philosophical code (Cahn, 2017, pp. 188-129).
This can be broken down into two understandings of Utilitarian philosophy: should we follow a moral set of rules in some cases? Or should one only do actions to only fully maximize happiness? This is understood in a systematized method as ‘Act Utilitarianism’ and ‘Rule Utilitarianism’ (Cahn, 2017, pp. …show more content…
Applying both Rule and Act Utilitarianism, you could sacrifice personal utility, but how would it be possible to do that to another person without consent? The conflict could arise with moral dilemmas that affect the many. If we only focus on the ends of an act, not duty or character, we have events where the duty to human-rights of the one may be passed all together under Act Utilitarianism; under Rule Utilitarianism, the conflict could arise, over the western understanding of justice, which as unbendable rules. People would need to be able to have a clear understanding of the rules, and so, it falls to the same objection. Utilitarianism can also be objected, with the ruthlessness and pragmatism in the world politics, it would be dangerous to forget duty that should be in place for not only justice but for the very core of western enlightenment and democracy. If we can’t apply this promptly to politics, then how can a society try to fully follow Utilitarianism as a
But a more in-depth analysis, or a ‘what if scenario’ could cause issues with Utilitarianism. Such an example is: if a person has to lie, destroy or doing something that many people view as ‘immoral’, to bring utility to the many, then how would Utilitarianism react to this? If a person thinks of happiness or the principle of utility: then lying, or doing an immoral action, may be needed, but what if this action is deeply immoral, such as murder? Then could a Utilitarian be forced to defend the immoral? This has caused a schism in the Utilitarian philosophical code (Cahn, 2017, pp. 188-129).
This can be broken down into two understandings of Utilitarian philosophy: should we follow a moral set of rules in some cases? Or should one only do actions to only fully maximize happiness? This is understood in a systematized method as ‘Act Utilitarianism’ and ‘Rule Utilitarianism’ (Cahn, 2017, pp. …show more content…
Applying both Rule and Act Utilitarianism, you could sacrifice personal utility, but how would it be possible to do that to another person without consent? The conflict could arise with moral dilemmas that affect the many. If we only focus on the ends of an act, not duty or character, we have events where the duty to human-rights of the one may be passed all together under Act Utilitarianism; under Rule Utilitarianism, the conflict could arise, over the western understanding of justice, which as unbendable rules. People would need to be able to have a clear understanding of the rules, and so, it falls to the same objection. Utilitarianism can also be objected, with the ruthlessness and pragmatism in the world politics, it would be dangerous to forget duty that should be in place for not only justice but for the very core of western enlightenment and democracy. If we can’t apply this promptly to politics, then how can a society try to fully follow Utilitarianism as a