One issue with the quoted definition is that it only specifies happiness. The issue is that it omits suffering, pain, and other negative encounters. This is sometimes called “positive utilitarianism”, and can be appeared differently in relation to “negative utilitarianism”, which is all about obtaining the least suffering for the minimum number.
Are either of these approaches an adequate version of the ethical theory? Should we be negative utilitarians or positive, or neither?
I think these are both absurd options. The issue with each is that it fails to consider the other. For instance, negative utilitarianism requests that we limit suffering (including distress, pain, and anything that is a negative thing to experience). But suffering is
Are either of these approaches an adequate version of the ethical theory? Should we be negative utilitarians or positive, or neither?
I think these are both absurd options. The issue with each is that it fails to consider the other. For instance, negative utilitarianism requests that we limit suffering (including distress, pain, and anything that is a negative thing to experience). But suffering is