1. The Greatest Happiness Principle discusses that the morally right action is the one that causes the greatest overall amount o pleasure ore least amount of suffering. The text, Fundamentals of Ethics explains it as the utilitarian outlook by saving that is required for us to create the greatest good for the greatest number (123).” In doing so, it is not always the action that benefits the most people but provides most pleasure. Secondly, we must choose the act that creates the greatest net balance of happiness over unhappiness (124). This can be applied in a situation of when you are deciding to spend your overall vacation during the summer. You can choose to rest over the summer and stay in bed all day, or you can volunteer over the summer
…show more content…
The view that I believe as providing the better guidance, in the general and views I have described above would be Stuart’s Mill’s view of Utilitarianism and the Principle of Greatest Happiness Principle. The first argument of why I believe that Utilitarianism provides better guidance than Kant’s view is a result of the simplicity and clarity that results from the maxim. The maxim of Mill’s view explains that we should maximize the most good we can to deliver the best overall amount of happiness. In this case, the maxim is self-explanatory to all individual and is can be carried out by individuals. Furthermore, Kantianism’s maxim is unclear at first to any individual who is not studying Philosophy by stating never to treat humans as a mere means. Therefore, the Principle of Humanity is too vague to guide our actions since it fails to give us clear action of what do to and what not to do; overall this theory lacks specificity. Specificity is found in Utilitarianism informs us that our decisions should create the most happiness/pleasure and to limit misery or harm to the best of our ability. Secondly, Mill’s view of Utilitarianism provides better guidance since its can resolve moral conflict. The theory states we must follow the option that will maximize wellbeing, that gives us an initial place to look for answers which simply explains choosing the option that increases overall well-being. To solve conflicts, we should follow the Greatest Happiness Principle and the Principle of Utility to determine what to do in difficult situations (129). This advantage is absent from Kantianism since the theory does not explain who to resolve conflicting moral duties; for example, Kant informs us to tell the truth versus saving a life. It is easier for Utilitarianism to answer how, since they always go with the action that produces the most good. Thirdly, Kantianism excludes animals and children from the moral community allowing us to draw the lines very narrowly. It limits
The view that I believe as providing the better guidance, in the general and views I have described above would be Stuart’s Mill’s view of Utilitarianism and the Principle of Greatest Happiness Principle. The first argument of why I believe that Utilitarianism provides better guidance than Kant’s view is a result of the simplicity and clarity that results from the maxim. The maxim of Mill’s view explains that we should maximize the most good we can to deliver the best overall amount of happiness. In this case, the maxim is self-explanatory to all individual and is can be carried out by individuals. Furthermore, Kantianism’s maxim is unclear at first to any individual who is not studying Philosophy by stating never to treat humans as a mere means. Therefore, the Principle of Humanity is too vague to guide our actions since it fails to give us clear action of what do to and what not to do; overall this theory lacks specificity. Specificity is found in Utilitarianism informs us that our decisions should create the most happiness/pleasure and to limit misery or harm to the best of our ability. Secondly, Mill’s view of Utilitarianism provides better guidance since its can resolve moral conflict. The theory states we must follow the option that will maximize wellbeing, that gives us an initial place to look for answers which simply explains choosing the option that increases overall well-being. To solve conflicts, we should follow the Greatest Happiness Principle and the Principle of Utility to determine what to do in difficult situations (129). This advantage is absent from Kantianism since the theory does not explain who to resolve conflicting moral duties; for example, Kant informs us to tell the truth versus saving a life. It is easier for Utilitarianism to answer how, since they always go with the action that produces the most good. Thirdly, Kantianism excludes animals and children from the moral community allowing us to draw the lines very narrowly. It limits