Utilitarianism: Is It Right or Wrong How We do Things to make us Happy? Utilitarianism is the actions that are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness and wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness, or pain. By being happy, it is the intended pleasure and the absence of pain and by being unhappy, it is the pain and the privation of pleasure (Heydt). There are several varieties of utilitarianism. “Basically, a utilitarian approach to morality implies that no moral act (an act of stealing) or rule (“Keep your promises”) is intrinsically right or wrong. Rather, the rightness or wrongness of an act or rule is solely a matter of the overall nonmoral good (pleasure, happiness, health, knowledge, or satisfaction
…show more content…
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. They say this, …show more content…
It is also viewed as a simple theory. “In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things: a) what things are good and bad; b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim to maximize; and c) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual consequences (the results that our actions actually produce) or by their foreseeable consequences (the results that we predict will occur based on the evidence that we have) (Nathanson)”, but the believe of Mill to maximize happiness and minimize suffering should work and help out many people how want to make the world a better place and a happier one, too. We should always strive to maximize happiness and minimize pain. We should follow Mill’s believes and do whatever we can do to make everyone happy and not let there be suffering in
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. They say this, …show more content…
It is also viewed as a simple theory. “In fact, however, the theory is complex because we cannot understand that single principle unless we know (at least) three things: a) what things are good and bad; b) whose good (i.e. which individuals or groups) we should aim to maximize; and c) whether actions, policies, etc. are made right or wrong by their actual consequences (the results that our actions actually produce) or by their foreseeable consequences (the results that we predict will occur based on the evidence that we have) (Nathanson)”, but the believe of Mill to maximize happiness and minimize suffering should work and help out many people how want to make the world a better place and a happier one, too. We should always strive to maximize happiness and minimize pain. We should follow Mill’s believes and do whatever we can do to make everyone happy and not let there be suffering in