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
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