Utilitarianism Is Common Sense Essay

Improved Essays
No we shouldn’t be equally concerned for everyone. Having equal concern for everyone is too challenging. It would require us to not only give up extravagances but to totally change our lives to help others that are in need of the greater good. We would be required to lower everything to the impartial promotion of general welfare and would require us to give up our plans and activities and devote ourselves full time to promoting the good of others. Utilitarianism is incapable of making a distinction between doing our duty and doing things that are creditable but not required by duty. Utilitarianism would require us to give up personal relationships, because they require favoritism and that goes against everything that’s impartiality. We are …show more content…
would give us nothing but the overall best consequences. Further, utilitarianism explains why we should treat people justly, not violate their rights and keep our promises. Because doing so promotes good consequences. Far from being incompatible with common sense, utilitarianism is common sense. In chapter 8 of Rachels’ book he had replied that sometimes ignoring moral common sense does bring about good results and so utilitarianism sometimes does disrupt common sense.
The version of utilitarianism claims that right acts are those that follow the set of rules whose existence would maximize happiness overall. The rule of utilitarianism can easily reply to the anti-utilitarian arguments.
Which rule would bring about more happiness overall: Sentencing and punishing innocent people or a rule that prohibits that? Since it is clearly the second rule, then the right act is to follow that rule. There are times where the justice system doesn’t follow that rule. Does a rule allowing the violation of people's rights bring about more happiness than a rule prohibiting actions that violate people's rights? No, so follow the rule prohibiting the violation of people's rights. Rules against lying, and in favor of loyalty (favoritism) to friends/family would also promote the greatest happiness and so following those rules is

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Our will must be good to want to cause the most pleasure and minimize suffering. Since one has a good will, they will most likely carry out the right act, whether that is an effective act is irrelevant. Voice 2: And here we come back to one of our first points, one does not have to have good will to do good. Yes, the good willed are more likely to carry out an act that maximizes happiness but it is not necessary to happen. Even if the person did not mean good, if we praise them then maybe they can be persuaded to act so that it maximizes everyone’s happiness and not just their own.…

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Glaucon Vs Socrates

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Consequences and laws ground us to the do no unlawful acts. If we take this factor out of the equation, people will do what they feel most comfortable with doing without feeling guilt. In conclusion, this paper presented the nature of justice, Glaucon’s argument for injustice, Socrates arguments for justice and a subjective elaboration on justice. The nature of justice is the best and worst of justice. Glaucon conclusion that that unjust is better than just, because of the instant awards and perks.…

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Like act utilitarianism, it appealing because it maximizes good outcomes, however, it does so by establishing strict moral rules. By establishing moral rules, rule utilitarianism avoids the conflicts act utilitarianism faces with individual rights and the difficulty of calculating utility. It aligns with our intuitive moral verdicts more often and prevents people from making errors in moral judgements, therefore, rule utilitarianism is the better utilitarianistic moral…

    • 712 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    When I lead the group we stayed on track and efficient, but when I am not interested the group may not get my idea even if they like it because I don 't believe it it the best I could come up with. The intuitive portion of my personality is a positive for the group because I use knowledge not feeling decide. As a decision maker or persuader I am very blunt and concise. I like to work with the knowns. For example, in the glow product activity I supported ideas that were practical and inventive and persuaded why the other creative ideas wouldn 't work and would be a bad idea.…

    • 2323 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Brennan, Warren – PHI220 DL01 – Short Paper 1 Utilitarianism, as presented by Shafer-Landau, is an interesting ethical theory in that it presents the idea that at times it is immoral to act in a manner that we’ve been taught is moral. I will argue that Act Utilitarianism is a sound ethical theory and that it’s precepts are utilized in modern society despite many public figures making pronouncements against this behavior. Act Utilitarianism is sound because it allows its supporters to resolve conflicts that other ethical theories struggle with. It also fits within the norms of recognized moral behavior on a day to day basis while being based upon the idea of treating every individual’s well-being equally. In his writings, Shafer-Landau, explains…

    • 825 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to people. Mill also believes that people are not satisfied with just physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well. There are two main types of utilitarianism including act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Act utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of specific actions of a human person in a particular situation and rule utilitarianism suggests that the principle of utility can be used to generate and test rules can be employed is similar situations. The assumption is that if we follow a set of rules that give us the best consequences our actions will result in the greater good for everyone around us.…

    • 901 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hard Work Research Paper

    • 1749 Words
    • 7 Pages

    We are all responsible for our own destinies and should not let others determine our course in life. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to be too optimistic. Optimism is important when it creates a sense of possibility that leads you to act, but it is destructive when it leads to the conclusion that things will work out the way they were meant to no matter what. Being optimistic about a situation will inspire you to take action, but being optimistic to a point that you believe action is unnecessary is only hurting yourself. Convincing yourself that everything will work out may alleviate stress, however, it takes away your freedom to act upon your circumstances.…

    • 1749 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    One reason they say the utilitarian way of doing things is bad/wrong is because even though we make less of a damage, we do not know what damage we will be doing for others, because do not think of the long-term consequences of our actions. Another objection they say is that is too demanding, that we usually act to promote good consequences, and that common sense morality is not demanding enough. “Critics attack utilitarianism’s commitment to impartiality and the equal consideration of interests. An implication of this commitment is that whenever people want to buy something for themselves or for a friend or family member, they must first determine whether they could create more well-being by donating their money to help unknown strangers who are seriously ill or impoverished… Critics claim that the argument for using our money to help impoverished strangers rather than benefiting ourselves and people we care about only proves one thing—that act utilitarianism is false (Nathanson).” Other objection is that people say that “happiness requires security”, they that how can you maximize happiness and minimize suffrage, if many people lie, say or do other things that later on do not happen and makes other people not have the trust or security to be happy. Going with my example, people will say that turning right just to kill the one person, is morally wrong.…

    • 1199 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Separateness Of Persons

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages

    According to Nozick this notion is flawed as “to use a person [for another’s benefit] does not sufficiently respect and take account of the fact that he is a separate person, that his is the only life he has. He does not get some overbalancing good from his sacrifice”. To put more plainly, the theory suggests that sacrificing the life of one person in order to maximise overall utility is still immoral, for that person is an individual in their own right and will not benefit from acting in this way. Utilitarianist’s fail to recognise that we are all separate beings in our own right. Instead it treats being’s as mere ‘repositories of…

    • 788 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Virtues ethics are based off of people as individuals not as whole groups. It does not solve any questions in ethical crisis. For example, the government cannot base their decisions off of what they feel and think, they have to be able to make the best decision for a better outcome for a group of people. This would not follow ethic virtue because what would be correct in virtue ethics is not correct for the government. It also cannot be applied in all situations.…

    • 971 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays